00:00:00 --- log: started forth/02.04.20
00:13:13 --- join: gilbert_bsd (~gilbert@max2-126.dacor.net) joined #forth
00:14:11 --- part: gilbert_bsd left #forth
00:29:57 --- nick: MrReach -> MrGone
00:57:29 --- join: davidw (~davidw@ppp-59-38.25-151.libero.it) joined #forth
01:06:33 --- join: gilbertbsd (~gilbert@max1-42.dacor.net) joined #forth
01:34:57 --- quit: gilbertbsd ("xchat exiting..")
05:24:59 --- join: Fare (fare@samaris.tunes.org) joined #forth
05:40:58 --- quit: Soap` (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
07:11:53 --- join: Stepan (~stepan@pD9E534A7.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth
07:12:04 <Stepan> re
07:12:37 <Fare> er
07:32:02 <Speuler> 'morning
07:56:23 --- quit: onetom (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
08:01:53 --- join: futhin (~thin@h24-64-174-2.cg.shawcable.net) joined #forth
08:02:26 <futhin> good morning
08:02:56 <futhin> hello joa
08:04:12 <futhin> anybody alive?
08:04:15 <futhin> speuler?
08:11:07 --- join: herkamire (~jason@ip68-9-58-81.ri.ri.cox.net) joined #forth
08:15:14 <futhin> goodmorning herkamire
08:15:57 <futhin> how is your forth doing?
08:16:32 <herkamire> morning :)
08:17:09 <herkamire> pretty well I think. I just changed the way I handle immediates, and I think it's working nicely
08:18:01 <futhin> ah, how did you change them?
08:18:24 <futhin> do you use a flag in the dictionary word's header to make it immediate?
08:18:54 <herkamire> at first my dictionary had two execution tokens in it for each word. one to be executed if the word was called at execution time, and one (if non-zero) to be called at compile time.
08:20:03 <herkamire> this worked fine for a while, except then I started writing forth words that compile stuff and they needed to be able to get at both those definitions.
08:20:06 <futhin> is there ever any case where you want to be able to execute an immediate word at execution time ??
08:20:31 <herkamire> ???? always?
08:20:40 <herkamire> oh. gotcha
08:20:45 <herkamire> yes. .(
08:20:57 <futhin> an immediate word is usually executed at compile time..
08:21:02 <futhin> that's the point of having an immediate word
08:21:36 <herkamire> yeah. I changed it so I just had one xt in the dictionary and a flag for immediate.
08:21:50 <herkamire> the few words that had usefull definitions for both cases I made into seperate words.
08:22:01 <futhin> i would think that an immediate word wouldn't be executed at execution (interpreted) time at all
08:22:10 <futhin> only at compile time
08:22:30 <herkamire> I found that most of the time I had different definitions the inturpret time definition was an abort (with a message saying not to call it at enturpret time)
08:23:12 <futhin> hm
08:23:36 <futhin> what word did you need for both instances (interpret & compile) ?
08:24:12 <herkamire> mostly I wrote them both in C.
08:24:28 <futhin> in the "C." word ?
08:24:37 <herkamire> then I made   IDOES>  which compiles a compile-time definition for the last word defined
08:24:52 <herkamire> C language
08:24:55 <futhin> um
08:25:09 <futhin> you misunderstand my question.. i think
08:25:11 <herkamire> it started getting quite stupid and confusing. so I trashed it all
08:25:31 <herkamire> oh
08:25:54 <futhin>  <herkamire> the few words that had usefull definitions for both cases I made into seperate words.
08:26:00 <futhin> what were those "few words" ?
08:26:06 <futhin> the names of the words..
08:26:26 <futhin> abort"  IF THEN ..  
08:26:27 <herkamire> ahh
08:26:28 <futhin> ?
08:26:49 <herkamire> literal loop
08:27:10 <futhin> eh?
08:27:16 <futhin> the DO LOOP ?
08:27:55 <futhin> ok
08:27:56 <futhin> 2 1 DO I . LOOP
08:28:03 <futhin> ERROR
08:28:07 <herkamire> i had the inturpret time code for literal load what would be the next instruction onto the stack.
08:28:11 <futhin> : test 2 1 DO I . LOOP ;
08:28:14 <futhin> NOERROR
08:28:47 <herkamire> so compiletime LITERAL was compiling runtime LITERAL
08:29:20 <herkamire> it was just a silly convention, which worked fine until I started needing to use it in forth.
08:29:41 <herkamire> then I started to see that it wasn't such a great idea
08:29:50 <herkamire> I only had 8 immediate words in C.
08:31:09 <futhin> i think we don't understand each other heh
08:31:23 <futhin> i don't understand  <herkamire> i had the inturpret time code for literal load what would be the next instruction onto the stack.
08:31:44 <futhin> i haven't coded my own forth yet
08:31:59 <futhin> and i only vaguely understand how it would work
08:32:55 <herkamire> I had two different words inturpret time literal (I'll call this i_literal) and compile time literal (I'll call it c_literal)
08:33:43 <herkamire> : c_literal ['] i_literal compile, compile, ;
08:34:08 --- join: onetom (tom@adsl52032.vnet.hu) joined #forth
08:34:14 <futhin> hi onetom :)
08:34:18 <herkamire> immediate
08:34:19 <futhin> i'm on your box right now
08:34:57 <onetom> hi guys
08:35:19 <herkamire> hmmm... I don't think that code would work.
08:35:35 <futhin> it's ugly too :P
08:35:46 <herkamire> the point is that I needed an instruction that would load a value onto the stack at runtime
08:36:07 <futhin> ugly code is a sin! you must tap into your inner chi and produce beautiful code!
08:36:29 <futhin> i'm not here
08:36:36 <herkamire> this instruction would be used by literal and create and variable etc
08:38:32 <futhin> herkamire: sorry but i'm not experienced enough to follow you..
08:38:37 <futhin> so don't worry about it
08:39:21 <herkamire> ok
08:39:57 <herkamire> I wanna do colorforth!
08:40:42 <futhin> :)
08:43:22 <herkamire> I also want to finish monkeying around with my forth before I start using tathi's primarily
08:43:22 <herkamire> my goal is to write see s" ." .(
08:43:22 <herkamire> I think s" is the word.
08:43:25 <herkamire> some way I can quote a string at compile time and it will be printed, or put on the stack (addr u) at runtime
08:43:29 <herkamire> : a s" I like to eat rope" ;
08:43:31 <herkamire> a type
08:43:38 <herkamire> (would print out: I like to eat rope)
08:44:29 <herkamire> then I can be satisfied that I wrote a decent forth, and I'll only ever use it if I feel like it :)
08:45:02 <futhin> :)
08:45:16 <futhin> throw in something that draws a line between two points
08:45:29 <futhin> x y moveto (moves to the point)
08:45:37 <herkamire> I'm not sure I have access to the frame buffer
08:45:42 <futhin> x y lineto (draws from current point to new point)
08:46:04 <herkamire> I am  not interested in figuring out how to work with X
08:46:16 <futhin> yeah..
08:46:29 <futhin> well you could just output it to the video buffer or something
08:46:45 <herkamire> I would be happy to write the forth words for you, but you will have to figure out how to get access to a frame buffer or something
08:47:01 <herkamire> video buffer == frame buffer
08:47:03 <futhin> heh
08:47:09 <futhin> no, the other way around :P
08:47:23 <futhin> somebody tell me how to use the framebuffer, etc..
08:47:26 <futhin> and i'll code the words ;)
08:47:31 <herkamire> are you on linux?
08:47:37 <onetom> futhin: well the math modell is sy like a status graph
08:47:43 <futhin> herkamire: nope heh :(
08:47:51 <herkamire> mac??
08:47:53 <onetom> herkamire: im also interested in frambuffer! :)
08:47:55 <futhin> onetom: a status graph?
08:47:56 <onetom> lol
08:48:06 <futhin> herkamire: wind0z3!
08:48:07 <onetom> herkamire: windoze
08:48:13 <herkamire> booooo
08:48:19 <onetom> bo bo booooo
08:48:28 <futhin> ph33r my er33tness!
08:48:36 <onetom> but u can emulate a frambuffer
08:48:47 <futhin> ah? how?
08:48:50 <onetom> sorry, simulate
08:48:58 <onetom> via files? ;)
08:49:11 <herkamire> aren't there forths for windoze that have a grahpics API?
08:49:22 <onetom> certainly ist not good 4 interactive stuff
08:49:29 <onetom> herkamire: bigforth
08:49:35 <futhin> herkamire: i want to code portable graphic routines ;)))
08:49:40 <onetom> or probably win32forth
08:50:04 <futhin> onetom: so i have to output the stuff to files and then display those files using something else  in windoze?
08:50:12 <onetom> yup
08:50:13 <onetom> exactly
08:50:23 <futhin> you really like files :)
08:50:28 <futhin> the unix philosophy has infected u!
08:50:33 <onetom> coz they r simple
08:50:46 <onetom> what i really like is shared mem
08:50:47 <herkamire> heh :) :) on my linux you can just write to dev/fb and it puts pixels on the screen :) :)
08:50:47 --- join: I440r (~mark4@1Cust19.tnt1.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth
08:51:04 <onetom> but most of the os-es protect it too much :)
08:51:06 <futhin> herkamire: ooh, you've figured it out already..
08:51:36 <futhin> shared mem?  does linux have that? :)
08:51:47 <onetom> sure it has
08:52:01 <onetom> but i dont know how to handle it conveniently
08:52:08 <futhin> yeah
08:52:10 <herkamire> I wrote a screenshot thing for linux a while and I just read from /dev/fb.
08:52:13 <onetom> and its not portable
08:52:14 <futhin> it's mostly invisible..
08:52:19 <herkamire> turns out you can write to /dev/fb too :)
08:52:23 <onetom> files r damn slow
08:52:24 <futhin> how about..  /dev/sharedmem   :)
08:52:33 <onetom> so they r portable
08:52:50 <onetom> so they r just fine for experimenting and development
08:53:05 <futhin> herkamire: nice..  when you read from /dev/fb did you have to convert it before you could save it as an image?
08:53:23 <onetom> but gotta go back to work
08:53:28 <futhin> ok
08:53:35 <futhin> talk to you later about the math model & more
08:53:42 <herkamire> futhin: no, but I had to make an image header that said the dimentions and pixel format
08:53:50 <futhin> i440r!
08:54:29 <futhin> herkamire: what image format was it in?  
08:54:44 <futhin> what image format did you save the file as?  .gif .jpg .png .?
08:54:45 <herkamire> it's just raw pixels
08:54:54 <onetom> futhin: oh, we can discuss it now
08:54:59 <herkamire> however you have X running
08:55:07 <herkamire> it's the memory on the graphics card that it's using to draw the screen
08:55:12 <onetom> futhin: i will only respond much slower
08:55:16 <futhin> ah
08:55:35 <onetom> futhin: do u know what is a state machine?
08:55:54 <herkamire> I used an uncompressed image type so I didn't have to do much :) I made a .pnm
08:56:08 <futhin> um.. it's on the edge of my memory, i don't remember exactly what it is
08:56:17 <herkamire> then I used pnmtopng to make a png :)
08:56:27 <futhin> yeah :)
08:57:50 <herkamire> that's so cool I can write to the frame buffer :) maybe I will do some graphics :)
08:58:17 <futhin> onetom: nevermind, i know what a state machine is
09:00:47 <onetom> futhin: do u know what a graph is?
09:01:40 <futhin> a picture representing values :P
09:01:50 <futhin> with a bunch of squigglies
09:02:19 <onetom> hehe
09:02:30 <onetom> not the most precise definition :)
09:03:03 <futhin> well ask a generic question, get a generic answer :P
09:03:03 <onetom> it represents objects (called nodes in english, iguess)
09:03:28 <onetom> and relations/connections between them
09:03:29 <futhin> you are talking about a mathematical graph definition or something more specific?
09:03:40 <onetom> called edges
09:03:54 <onetom> sure, the math def
09:03:55 <futhin> 2 : a diagram (as a series of one or more points, lines, line segments, curves, or areas) that represents the variation of a variable in comparison with that of one or more other variables 
09:04:17 <onetom> ?
09:04:25 <MrGone> oh, man, someone's up *WAY* too damn early
09:04:33 --- nick: MrGone -> MrReach
09:04:33 <futhin> that's a definition from the dictionary
09:04:43 <I440r> lol
09:04:45 <futhin> mrreach: you are up early? or onetom is?
09:04:55 <I440r> my dad was banging arround this morning and woke me up
09:04:56 <MrReach> 9am here, fairly early
09:05:04 <I440r> and the bastard sleeps with the damned TV blaring all night too
09:05:06 <futhin> 9am ain't bad
09:05:07 <I440r> grrr
09:05:16 <futhin> lol
09:05:38 <futhin> that's what dads do, bang around in the morning to wake up everybody else
09:05:43 <MrReach> I'm gonna head down to the store about 10-10:30
09:06:05 <futhin> mrreach: show them your kung fu technique!
09:06:29 <futhin> you'll get a 20% discount and inspire them to work harder!
09:06:43 <MrReach> "the badass method of customer service"?
09:06:53 <futhin> ?
09:07:27 <herkamire> if I compile with gcc -nostdlib it takes 14K of my filesize
09:07:31 <MrReach> heh, I'm going to the computer store that I'm thinking of buying
09:07:31 <onetom> futhin: so u can represent the working logic of a state machine w a directed graph (the state graph)
09:07:42 <futhin> mrreach: i know :)
09:07:47 <MrReach> ok
09:07:51 <futhin> mrreach: 20% discount on the cost of buying it..
09:07:58 <MrReach> ah!
09:08:39 <futhin> my statement was generic enough you could apply it to a scenario of a regular shopping at some store..
09:08:40 <MrReach> I'm not awake yet, sorry ... coffee is still brewing
09:09:22 <futhin> oh don't worry, my speaking wasn't clear as mud
09:10:20 <futhin> or unclear as mud? 
09:10:20 <futhin> heh
09:10:47 <futhin> "clear as mud" cliche for very clear..  kinda contradictory
09:11:00 <futhin> onetom: ok
09:11:05 <MrReach> I440r: by golly, you've almost got a real channel going here
09:11:27 <futhin> heh
09:11:32 <I440r> almost - and futhin STOLE it off me heh
09:11:35 <herkamire> I don't think "clear as mud" means clear. it's just used with heavy sarcasm
09:11:41 <futhin> it scares me to imagine more activity
09:11:51 <I440r> actually it seemd to take off right after he stole it :)
09:12:00 <MrReach> I mean there's people, and some of them are talking, there's a topic, and EVERYTHING
09:12:04 <futhin> heheh :)
09:12:33 <futhin> it scares me to imagine more activity..  soon people will be talking too fast for anybody else to follow..  like in #lisp
09:12:46 <I440r> it could have been much more active if isforth had been :)
09:13:19 <I440r> 23847583925698259824 people all in #forth at the same time and not one bot.... DROOL!!!!
09:13:22 <futhin> and you'll have to focus on local conversations (talking within a time frame of 10 seconds) in order to actually converse
09:13:23 <herkamire> perhaps this won't get toooo much activity because a bunch of us can't read fast :)
09:13:48 <futhin> herkamire: i'm inviting chuck moore to this channel
09:13:52 <futhin> for an online interview
09:13:58 <futhin> and i'll advertise about it on comp.lang.forth
09:14:05 <futhin> we should get more people here ;)
09:14:06 <MrReach> yes, but what would Chuck being here accomplish?
09:14:14 <I440r> i doubt he will come
09:14:18 <futhin> yeah
09:14:21 <I440r> are you kidding ?????????????/
09:14:29 <I440r> chuck moor in here ????
09:14:33 <futhin> :)
09:14:43 <MrReach> look, the only question that makes any sense would be "what are you working on now?"
09:14:45 <I440r> who cares what that would accomplish heh
09:14:52 <MrReach> everything else is already published
09:14:53 <I440r> he would be in HERE !!!!
09:14:53 <I440r> eduh!
09:15:06 <futhin> mrreach: we can ask him questions, and give him our opinions  (me especially - concerning the state of forth right now)
09:15:18 <futhin> :P
09:15:22 <MrReach> however, f chuck hung out here a couple days a week, that would be a different story
09:15:41 <futhin> i doubt he would waste his time with us :P
09:15:57 <MrReach> we would then get to see and understand his perspective, which is still really out there, IMO
09:15:58 <herkamire> here is plenty to read on the net about what chuck thinks about the future of forth
09:15:59 <I440r> prolly not :)
09:16:10 <futhin> yes
09:16:15 <herkamire> a bit dated perhaps, but enough to keep you busy for a while I think.
09:16:24 <I440r> but if he did i bet there would be a gazillion new ppl in here every day :)
09:16:28 <futhin> i would like to see more of his perspective and understand it
09:16:41 <MrReach> so would I
09:16:53 <MrReach> even if I vehemently disagree with it
09:16:56 <futhin> i think he should write a book or something
09:17:02 <futhin> or put some real content online
09:17:15 <futhin> focusing on his concepts, ideas, forth coding tricks, etc..
09:17:19 <futhin> he has developed a huge toolbox
09:17:22 <I440r> he is probably way too busy
09:17:23 <MrReach> yes, a bulletin board or message list might be a better forum
09:17:29 <herkamire> I don't feel like I have enough experience with forth to have a good conversation with Chuck
09:17:38 <futhin> mrreach: CLF is a forum :P
09:17:51 <MrReach> hard to write to
09:18:10 <futhin> oh don't worry, none of you have to converse with chuck, i'll do it, and make a fool of myself.. no problemo ;)
09:18:20 <MrReach> brb ... *COFFEE*!!!!
09:18:21 <herkamire> i hope my toaster's not broken <sniff>
09:18:34 <I440r> irc is a place to chat - chatting with ppl on clf is like chatting thru email. impossible :P
09:18:51 <futhin> herk: if it ain't broken, fix it! :D
09:19:12 <futhin> that's star trek scotty's motto, and it should be everyone's :)
09:19:33 <herkamire> how about I get rid of it and get a Real toster
09:19:38 <futhin> if it ain't broken, and you fix it, you are improving it, upgrading it..
09:19:46 <futhin> adding features to it :P
09:19:57 <futhin> every toaster should have a printer
09:20:05 <futhin> and be connected to your computer
09:20:21 <herkamire> both??
09:20:38 <futhin> the ability to toast bread... is NOT important! ;)
09:20:43 <herkamire> if I'm going to have a printer, I'd rather it was connected to my computer...
09:21:06 <herkamire> and I'd rather not combine the functions of toaster and print-server
09:21:09 <futhin> hm, the toaster would be connected to the computer..
09:21:20 <I440r> futhin and a modem so it can send you email when your toast is ready :)
09:21:24 <futhin> so you can toast bread efficiently from the computer
09:21:26 <onetom> futhin: im getting more and more convinced about that what chuck thinks...
09:21:30 <MrReach> so it could tell you when your toast pops while you're on IRC
09:21:47 <onetom> futhin: there can b a common denominator of forthes
09:21:48 <I440r> mrreach i bet YOU to the punch line this time :P
09:21:54 <I440r> lol
09:22:03 <I440r> oh yea. did we mention tail gaters yet ??? grrrr
09:22:03 <I440r> lol
09:22:06 <futhin> onetom: yes. i agree very strongly with many things that chuck moore thinks..
09:22:16 <MrReach> print server works by spraying tiny drops of butter onto paper, then roasting the butter until it is light brown
09:22:44 <onetom> futhin: forth is much more a philosophy, a struturing method, than a language
09:22:51 <futhin> yup
09:23:04 <futhin> and it's also about keeping things simple..
09:23:11 <futhin> er
09:23:14 <futhin> that's part of the philosophy
09:23:15 <futhin> nevermind :P
09:23:21 <onetom> so creating a forth os
09:23:26 <onetom> and libraries for it
09:23:34 <futhin> mrreach: sounds like a tasty printer
09:23:43 <futhin> mrreach: and 100% doable!
09:24:17 <MrReach> somehow, I don't think 4th has aceived 1/10th of its potential
09:24:20 <onetom> will differ highly from the older methods, like create a language (C) then build an os (*nix) using it
09:24:49 <I440r> it never will
09:24:49 <I440r> because it will never be main stream line c
09:24:49 <I440r> any idiot can learn c
09:24:52 <MrReach> but I think that purists really injure the language
09:24:56 <I440r> forth only lets real men code :)
09:25:06 <MrReach> heh, like I said
09:25:06 <I440r> u mean like me ?
09:25:09 <I440r> :) hehe
09:25:45 <onetom> what we need - ithink - is to establish 4th kernel implementation methods
09:25:53 <onetom> and give examples of them
09:25:57 <MrReach> so many times people ask me how to do a task that is commonly done in other languages, and it can't be done with their forth
09:26:00 <onetom> written in various other langs
09:26:11 <MrReach> onetom: why the kernel?
09:26:24 <onetom> and we should consolidate "api"s
09:26:39 <MrReach> generally, only people writing kernels would be interested, right?
09:26:41 <onetom> in the form of vocabularies
09:26:55 <MrReach> THAT I will agree with and stand for
09:27:12 <onetom> w various example implementations
09:27:27 <MrReach> an example for what I perceive the problem to me ...
09:27:35 <onetom> what r usable & tryable in specific environments
09:27:38 <futhin> mrreach & i440r:  forth _can_ become main stream.  it is a question of support & everybody having access to a well designed forth that has been extended to a high-level.   hence:  the forth operating system!
09:27:54 <onetom> coz we can write reusable libraries in 4th
09:28:12 <onetom> because they can b flexible
09:28:13 <MrReach> an experienced coder new to forth asks me, "I'm writing a file editor ... how do I get a list of files and attributes in a given directory?"
09:28:16 <onetom> CANT
09:28:36 <I440r> brb
09:29:01 <MrReach> well, you have to go digging into the guts of both the forth and the OS to place the system call(s)
09:29:01 <onetom> MrReach: just as the other langs: via the functions the os supports
09:29:22 <onetom> MrReach: or it also give u the same paradigm as C or pascal
09:29:37 <onetom> MrReach: u will get a stdin & stdout
09:29:38 <MrReach> yes, stdlib
09:30:04 <onetom> MrReach: and read/write 2 them via key&emit
09:30:11 <onetom> no
09:30:14 <onetom> not stdlib
09:30:52 <onetom> im not thinking in the usual os domain
09:31:09 <onetom> a system w a forth shouldnt all the time have a filesys
09:31:24 <MrReach> the point is, it's a bloody nuisance to do the things other languages do as a matter of course
09:31:46 <onetom> so we shouldnt definitely need a "standard" file-access wordset, HOWEVER
09:31:49 <futhin> mrreach: that is somewhat true..  blame chuck moore :P
09:31:55 <MrReach> there's a reason why most language manuals are 800+ pages
09:32:04 <futhin> chuck moore wasn't interested in handling strings, etc
09:32:12 * MrReach nods.
09:32:28 <onetom> we should establish an *interface* for the general tree-way organized filesystems
09:32:52 <onetom> strings r also another nice example
09:32:54 <MrReach> onetom: how an "API"?
09:33:03 <onetom> open-file
09:33:05 <MrReach> +about
09:33:09 <futhin> i think one of the best ways to get forth out there, is thru an operating system, because you wouldn't have to be a programmer in order to be able to use the operating system  (assume it has everything windows has and more)
09:33:22 <MrReach> I disagree, futhin
09:33:24 <onetom> open-file ( name-string -- id err)
09:33:39 <onetom> close-file ( id -- )
09:33:40 <futhin> in order to build the operating system a lot of vocabulary has to be developed:  file handling, graphics, multitasking, etc
09:33:48 <onetom> read-file write-file ...
09:33:52 <MrReach> futhin: I depend on my OSes right now for everything, business and personal
09:34:13 <onetom> MrReach: thats just a passing phase :)
09:34:18 <futhin> :)
09:34:32 <onetom> so back 2 the string example
09:34:46 <MrReach> to get me to migrate to another os requires either 1. the functions I need to already be in place, or 2. enough advantage to rationalize the cost of a new machine
09:34:47 <onetom> we know about @ least 3 string manipulation methods
09:34:56 <MrReach> heh
09:35:10 <onetom> counted strings, 0 terminated strings, ans4th strings
09:35:24 <MrReach> I have a 4th method ...
09:35:35 <futhin> mrreach: yes.  i'm going to focus on the "enough advantage to convince people to switch over" part  for the operating system
09:35:40 <onetom> so we should create suggested example implementation of them
09:35:47 <MrReach> descriptor strings, similar to the way MS BASIC used to do it on 8 bit machines
09:35:54 <onetom> is randomly selected environments
09:36:17 <onetom> and we also should give usage examples for them
09:36:30 <MrReach> you know, even embedded controllers have 8 MB of ram now
09:36:53 <MrReach> onetom: agreed, for sure, about examples
09:37:24 <onetom> MrReach: but for mass apps u will still use cheaper & much more limited controlers
09:37:52 <MrReach> hmmm ... that's not an arena that I'm usually in
09:38:08 <onetom> MrReach: coz in case of series-products pennies r also count
09:38:31 <MrReach> "series-products" ???
09:38:43 <onetom> i dont know the proper word for it...
09:38:49 <onetom> like wrist-watches
09:38:59 <onetom> microwave ovens
09:38:59 <MrReach> consumer personal electronics ???
09:39:02 <onetom> walkmans
09:39:08 <MrReach> ok
09:39:29 <MrReach> "consumer electronics"
09:39:38 <onetom> ehhh, that word shouldnt b specificly refer 2 electronic stuff
09:39:46 <onetom> cars r also a good example
09:40:02 <MrReach> anyway, I was talking about general computing languages
09:40:14 <onetom> ive tried 2 express: things manufactured in a large volumen
09:40:20 <MrReach> yes
09:40:37 <MrReach> perhaps "embedded controllers" would be a better term
09:40:43 <onetom> like hammers, or spoons
09:40:58 <futhin> series-products = mass produced electronics
09:41:02 <onetom> what products r they?
09:41:07 <futhin> i think that's what the intent was?
09:41:15 <onetom> not especially electronics!
09:41:20 <MrReach> embedded controllers?
09:41:37 <onetom> nevemind, forget it
09:41:41 <I440r> back
09:41:41 <I440r> had breakfast :)
09:41:43 <MrReach> small computers embedded into items for control/feedback purposes
09:41:45 <I440r> scrambled eggz with toast with LOADS of peanutbutter on :)
09:41:57 <MrReach> amazing how useful a small beep can be
09:42:47 <I440r> useful yes... but sometimes annoying :)
09:42:50 <MrReach> anyway, I was thinking on the scale of PCs and OSes
09:43:13 <MrReach> as a general computing language, forth *SUCKS*
09:43:24 <I440r> lol
09:43:34 <I440r> i cant disagree more :P
09:43:40 <I440r> but then
09:43:47 <I440r> 99% of what i do is embedded :)
09:43:58 <herkamire> headphones are great for getting any computer to not beep
09:44:26 <herkamire> when your old earphones die, you can cut the cord right by the plug, and then you have  the ultimate mute
09:44:29 <I440r> fpc beeps when you try delete past the beginning of a line.
09:44:36 <I440r> isforth just silently does no delete
09:44:37 <MrReach> I440r: earlier I used the example of an experienced coder new to forth asking me "I'm writing a file editor, how do I get a list of files in a given directory?"
09:45:05 <futhin> mrreach: as a general computing language, forth _hasn't_ been extended enough!
09:45:06 <I440r> mrreach fpc had the ability to do that
09:45:15 <MrReach> so does gforth
09:45:20 <I440r> its simply a question of knowing how to make the system calls to write the function to do it
09:45:30 <MrReach> so tell the guy to use a different forth? what kind of answer is that?
09:45:43 <herkamire> directory listings are not platform-independant
09:46:01 <I440r> no. you tell him to rtfm how such a thing is done and to WRITE it
09:46:01 <I440r> lol
09:46:04 <MrReach> herkamire: they are in tcl ... and in C with a little tweaking
09:46:22 <herkamire> not really. or not well
09:46:38 <MrReach> at least among Linux/FreeBSD/Win32/MacOS
09:46:43 <herkamire> on Mac you are supposed to handle files much differently than you do in unix
09:47:20 <MrReach> what's the new MacOS called? something-X???
09:47:35 <herkamire> on Mac you aren't supposed to open files with paths
09:47:46 <herkamire> Mac OS X
09:47:51 <MrReach> ok
09:48:00 <herkamire> I'm talking about OS 9 and earlier
09:48:10 <MrReach> that's fine
09:48:11 <herkamire> OS X is bsd
09:48:21 <I440r> lol windows has got rid of the concept of a cwd too
09:48:56 --- join: tathi (~tathi@ip68-9-58-81.ri.ri.cox.net) joined #forth
09:49:30 <MrReach> many languages offer a uniform interface to the filesystem
09:49:30 <futhin> hi tathi
09:49:35 <MrReach> greets, tathi
09:50:00 <I440r> hi tathi
09:50:00 <tathi> hey all
09:50:08 <futhin> i440r: cwd?
09:50:16 <MrReach> current working directory
09:50:36 <futhin> herkamire: if you don't open files with paths, what do you open files with in mac os x ?
09:50:43 <MrReach> it disappeared in WinCE ... and is deemphasised in winXP ... I think
09:50:47 <I440r> current working directory
09:50:57 <herkamire> OS X is BSD
09:51:02 <herkamire> UNIX
09:51:04 <MrReach> now, files are more like URLs
09:51:05 <futhin> and bsd has paths
09:52:21 <MrReach> anyway, I'd like to see forth follow the same path as TCL, for PCs anyway
09:52:32 <herkamire> yes. before Mac OS X Mac OS didn't use paths
09:52:57 <futhin> what did it use then?
09:53:11 <MrReach> 2-3 coders for Linux, 2-3 for win32, 2-3 for MacOS ... they all write so that the APIs behave identically on all platforms
09:53:32 <tathi> we actually planning a standard forth here?
09:53:37 <MrReach> TCL has totally cornered the scripting market ... something I think forth should have done
09:53:40 <futhin> mrreach: i'd like to see an operating system (probably coded in forth) to replace linux, windows, macos 
09:53:50 <I440r> not me :P
09:53:56 <MrReach> I know, futhin
09:53:59 <herkamire> works for me
09:54:06 <MrReach> I440r: not you what?
09:54:15 <I440r> erm no - thats wrong
09:54:16 <herkamire> we come up with standard instructions for the "forth virtual machine"
09:54:17 <futhin> tathi: i don't think that we're planning a standard forth, i'm not sure if anybody thinks a standard forth is the key..
09:54:24 <I440r> im going to make an isforth standard and comply with it 100% :)
09:54:39 * MrReach laughs.
09:54:42 <tathi> futhin: semi-standard APIs though?
09:54:54 <herkamire> then we come up with some standard APIs (graphics, files, sound) and we program operating systems
09:54:56 <herkamire> in forth
09:55:11 <futhin> tathi: yes. api's and librarys probably
09:55:13 <futhin> http://www.theforthsource.com/fp002.html
09:55:13 <MrReach> tathi: I'd like to see that ... but forthers seem too eclectic to actually do it
09:55:33 <futhin> yeah, forth coders are lazy!
09:55:42 <tathi> I certainly am :)
09:55:48 <futhin> look at me, i'm soooo lazy and i'm not a forth coder.  imagine if i was ;)
09:56:05 <tathi> I agree with I440r, I'll come up with my own standard and comply with it 100%
09:56:06 <futhin> i'm not a REAL forth coder
09:56:06 <futhin> that is
09:56:19 <futhin> eh
09:56:25 <herkamire> chat rooms are not places to find highly motivated coders.... if we were highly motivated we wouldn't be sitting on our asses chatting
09:56:28 <futhin> why not come up with a standard that other people agree with :P
09:56:40 <tathi> I have no problem with writing APIs that are compatible with yours if you have code that I want to run though :)
09:56:41 <I440r> futhin thats because your not a real coder at all :P
09:56:43 <futhin> herkamire: lies! blasphemy!!!
09:56:48 <I440r> but your in the right place to fix that:)
09:57:08 <MrReach> tathi: imagine a forth that is huge, but give you access to all the niceties of your OS ... and you are forced to change OSes, no biggie, because it runs on your new OS, too
09:57:22 <futhin> imagine a forth os
09:57:28 <futhin> and when you want to switch to a new architecture
09:57:30 <futhin> no biggie!
09:57:32 <futhin> it's portable!
09:57:33 <futhin> :P
09:57:46 <futhin> heheh
09:57:50 <futhin> i'm very narrow minded 
09:57:59 <MrReach> futhin: can I run mIRC on it? how about my TCL IRC bot?
09:58:11 <herkamire> ok, so who wants to fight over... I mean come up with a standard instruction set?
09:58:19 <MrReach> will it do the linux routing functions out of the box?
09:58:22 <futhin> naw.. i don't care about compatibility, but there will be _significant_ advantages
09:58:46 <futhin> it will be compelling to switch over, because you'll be able to recode everything in 2 hours :P
09:59:07 <futhin> everything that you'll be missing, just recode it on the fly
09:59:11 <tathi> MrReach: I don't need something huge. I currently use ssh, ftp, emacs, gcc and xchat. That's all the functionality I need.
09:59:14 <futhin> it'll be a beautiful system :P
09:59:20 <MrReach> you know, I bought a computer and an OS specifically to firewall my intranet ... that's a bunch of money, and worth every penny ... it also turns out to be an outstand file and print server, too
09:59:26 <tathi> Oh, and RockDodger -- can't forget that :)
09:59:57 <herkamire> hehe :)
10:00:15 <futhin> mrreach: the forth os will come with a lot of functionality that is expected:  web browser, editor, irc client, ftp client, print server, all sorts of other servers (that i have really cool ideas about)
10:00:16 <futhin> etc
10:00:21 <herkamire> we definately need three good little cheezy games with huge replayability
10:00:39 <futhin> you won't need mIRC when you switch over to the forth os
10:00:58 <futhin> and some games too
10:01:00 <MrReach> heh, I'm heavily invested in mIRC
10:01:12 <I440r> yes i think irc should be built into every os :)
10:01:16 <MrReach> not monetarily, but in learning how to use it and in scripting
10:01:26 <herkamire> the OS will be a virtual machine and a set of APIs for graphics, sound, files and devices
10:01:31 <I440r> mrreach i used to script mirc!
10:01:47 <onetom> herkamire: thats right
10:01:49 <MrReach> heh, that doesn't surprise me, I440r
10:02:07 <herkamire> irc isn't built into any operating system that I know of
10:02:07 <onetom> herkamire: so we should create various implementations for those modules
10:02:12 <I440r> mrreach i only wrote one script but it had every single x command on undernet
10:02:26 <I440r> including all the oper ones and some irc oper ones 
10:02:28 <futhin> why? i think that the forth os will let you change things on the fly.  that means, you are in irc, and you want to highlight somebody's name and make the window circular, boom, 2 lines of code, hit enter, it's changed, on the fly
10:02:43 <I440r> i never released it tho heh
10:02:50 * MrReach nods.
10:03:06 <onetom> herkamire: built up from various tools (think of the variations of string handling)
10:03:12 <MrReach> god, it's amazing the diversity of opinions here
10:03:18 <onetom> herkamire: various object models
10:03:39 <herkamire> people can build their own object models
10:03:41 <onetom> herkamire: various structured-data handling stuff
10:04:47 <MrReach> everyone has a very strong opinion of what forth "NEEDS" ... Chuck Moore is probably laughing his ass off. He'd say, "They should ask 'What does the coder need for this app?'."
10:04:53 <herkamire> we can write that stuff in forth
10:04:53 <herkamire> I think we need to get the virtualmachine and the hardware APIs seperate from everything else
10:05:07 <herkamire> yeah :)
10:05:16 <herkamire> I have a tendancy to be very practical like that
10:05:33 <onetom> writing sample implementations for the various basic tools
10:05:42 <herkamire> I think the reason for a lot of the unneeded complexity in software is that people don't really know what they want their program to do.
10:05:49 <onetom> anyone can roll his/her own os
10:06:05 <herkamire> onetom: do you want to invent the virtual machine?
10:06:06 <MrReach> heh, think so?
10:06:19 <onetom> suited to his/her specific hardware/needs
10:06:26 <herkamire> onetom: this is a documentation project first, then we have to make it work.
10:06:28 <MrReach> oh, ok
10:06:32 <onetom> herkamire: dont think so...
10:06:46 <herkamire> onetom: or you could make something work, then document it....
10:07:15 <onetom> herkamire: but it the kernel is the 0th level of my multidimensional code system theory...
10:07:24 <herkamire> I could make the first draft, but it will probably suck and not work because I don't have much experience writing forths.
10:07:47 <onetom> herkamire: i wouldnt call it doc project, rather a design project..
10:07:56 <herkamire> whatever
10:08:04 <onetom> its important...
10:08:31 <onetom> eg, we also should create "cross-implementations"
10:08:38 <herkamire> coming up with a standard with any expectation of people following it, will be mostly deciding how it should work and documenting that.
10:08:52 <herkamire> I'm not worried about the parts you can write in forth.
10:08:57 <onetom> a machine forth built up on regular forth
10:09:02 <onetom> and vica versa
10:09:08 <MrReach> and writing AT LEAST one implementation and using it in an application
10:09:21 <herkamire> once we get a standard environment that runs forth, people can do whatever they want. even make a multidimentional code system
10:09:24 <MrReach> the "acid test"
10:09:28 <onetom> conversions between the various string representations
10:09:32 <onetom> and so on
10:09:48 <I440r> mrreach is that like the "smoke test" ?
10:09:49 <I440r> heh
10:09:50 <herkamire> we definately need to try it.
10:10:14 <MrReach> heh, hadn't thought of that, but from a HW designer's point of view, yes it is
10:10:16 <onetom> herkamire: u cant advice an omnipotent solution ithink
10:10:38 <MrReach> onetom: why not? other languages do it
10:10:39 <onetom> herkamire: not even in the case of basic forth words
10:10:42 <MrReach> (or try to)
10:10:48 <herkamire> tathi and I are building an os ontop of the PPC instruction set, but we could easily provide APIs and a virtual machine for a standard forth
10:11:05 <onetom> herkamire: thats why other langs r not optimal enough
10:11:10 <futhin> not everyone can roll his own os.  don't forget the non-programmers too
10:11:14 <I440r> now - wheres tcn :P
10:11:16 <onetom> herkamire: they r only good for specific tasks
10:11:41 <onetom> herkamire: we will also create forth "dialects" for such specific task
10:11:42 <herkamire> optimal in what way?
10:12:09 <herkamire> you can do that if you want. in forth.
10:12:12 <onetom> herkamire: i was refering to these dialects as "api"s formerly
10:12:12 <futhin> i think one of the problems we have, is that we don't make very good use of terminology when we are talking about forth
10:12:16 <futhin> for example
10:12:22 <onetom> herkamire: optimal in speed
10:12:26 <futhin> whenever you code in forth, in _reality_ you are making a new dialect
10:12:31 <futhin> you are creating a new language
10:12:34 <futhin> a vocabulary
10:12:37 <MrReach> forth is not fast
10:12:38 <herkamire> futhin: true
10:12:39 <futhin> i think this is a little confusing
10:12:49 <onetom> herkamire: they  r not optimal in speed, but usually source code length/understandability
10:12:52 <futhin> it confuses the terminology
10:12:53 <futhin> we use
10:13:08 <herkamire> cool
10:13:32 <onetom> MrReach: "forth is not fast" ~= "motorola is not fast" ~= "intel is not fast"
10:13:41 <onetom> MrReach: does it make any sense?
10:13:53 <MrReach> yes, comparatively speaking ...
10:13:54 <herkamire> what we need to worry about to make this a reality is the minimum virtual machine and APIs to access hardware
10:13:57 <onetom> MrReach: i will help u answering: no
10:14:12 <futhin> programs in forth are solved by better and more simple solutions, and they gain speed because of that
10:14:21 <onetom> MrReach: forth is NOT just a language
10:14:35 <MrReach> I440r is gonna kill me for saying so, but with todays machines, efficiency of execution is no longer a priority, neither is memory usage
10:14:37 <futhin> forth programs can have the advantage in speed over other languages like C because the more optimal solution is usually found.
10:14:41 <onetom> MrReach: !!!forth is a processor architecture!!!
10:14:53 <I440r> mrreach actually to a certain degree i agree
10:14:53 <herkamire> futhin: I agree, and I hope that's what onetom is trying to get at
10:14:56 <onetom> try 2 understand that.
10:14:58 <futhin> mrreach: that's true, we don't care about the speed of forth, even though it can be fast :)
10:15:06 <I440r> but not if its useds as an exscuse to write bad code 
10:15:43 <onetom> MrReach: efficiency is still a real need, believe me
10:15:55 <herkamire> onetom: I don't have forth hardware...
10:15:59 <MrReach> the point is that now it's how fast an app writer can write an app
10:16:10 <MrReach> and forth is still not too good in that arena
10:16:11 <onetom> MrReach: eg, my 400MHz pII wasnt able 2 play videos fluently under linux 4 a long time
10:16:18 <I440r> mrreach wtf ?
10:16:25 <onetom> MrReach: so the decoder must b optimized for speed..
10:16:25 <I440r> u saying forth has aa slow devel time ?
10:16:26 <I440r> bs
10:16:41 <futhin> forth needs to be extended
10:16:48 <onetom> herkamire: that doesnt matter u have a 4th hardware or not
10:16:50 <futhin> but in general, it has a wayy faster devel time
10:16:59 <onetom> herkamire: u still can say forth is slow
10:17:10 <MrReach> I can write an editor with quite a few features in TCL in two days ... how about forth?
10:17:26 <onetom> herkamire: coz intel is also slow emulated on top of either a motrola or forth processor....
10:17:28 <herkamire> onetom: a virtual machine is generally slow.
10:17:34 <I440r> ill let you know if i ever write an editor :P
10:17:38 <MrReach> (actually tk comes with a rather good editor GUI widget, but that's cheating)
10:18:02 <onetom> MrReach: yup, thats cheating a bit
10:18:28 <MrReach> THAT editor probably has 1/2 man-year invested in it
10:19:00 <herkamire> onetom: are you interested in a standard forth virtual machine that people can implement on whatever platferm? (something that we could built an OS on top of)
10:19:03 <onetom> MrReach: but eg, a 4th kernel written in tcl could help utilize tk and u still can code & test & even use (uknow speed is not a problem w todays machines ;) inside that tcl kernel
10:19:14 <onetom> an editor
10:20:01 <rob_ert> A plus within a cricle, that's XOR, right?
10:20:05 <onetom> herkamire: im interested in reference implementations of all the possibly useful forth architectures
10:20:08 <MrReach> heh, yoiu mean use the tk editor by calling into the tk lib with forth?
10:20:11 <futhin> i still care about speed, because it still adds up, when you have multiple applications running at the same time
10:20:50 <MrReach> futhin: right, but there's no excuse for an 8K forth on a PC
10:20:54 <onetom> MrReach: beside that, dont forget, im just about 2 write a multiuser editor in forth ;)
10:21:15 <MrReach> oh! cool! do I get to see the code? which forth you gonna use? what OS?
10:21:16 <onetom> MrReach: and probably the 1st interface 4 it will b tcltk :P
10:21:30 <tathi> rob_ert: think so
10:21:33 <onetom> MrReach: will c
10:21:47 <onetom> MrReach: probably i will use tile for the first time
10:21:54 <onetom> MrReach: from under linux
10:22:01 * MrReach nods, "Good choice"
10:22:18 <MrReach> herkamire just wrote a simple C-based forth
10:22:25 <onetom> MrReach: my filesytem interface will help 2 interface tcl w forth
10:22:35 <rob_ert> tathi: :) thanks
10:22:57 <onetom> MrReach: it will be very slow for the first time, i think....
10:23:07 <MrReach> I can imagine
10:23:10 <onetom> MrReach: but not that is the point.
10:23:23 <MrReach> two byte-compiled languages calling into each other
10:23:47 <onetom> MrReach: coz later i will be able 2 replace that slow file based comm interface w sy faster like sockets
10:23:50 <MrReach> I should stop hanging out here
10:24:00 <onetom> MrReach: no no, u didnt get the point
10:24:16 <onetom> MrReach: i will use tcltk only as a display 4 4th
10:24:24 <futhin> mrreach: lies
10:24:28 <MrReach> I understand
10:24:30 <futhin> mrreach: this channel rules
10:24:32 <MrReach> futhin: how so?
10:24:33 <onetom> MrReach: in the case of my editor
10:25:02 <MrReach> onetom: understood
10:25:17 <onetom> MrReach: that 4th inside tcl was just a previous, separate example
10:25:18 <herkamire> ./away
10:25:21 * herkamire is away: I'm busy
10:25:24 <futhin> i'd love to see this channel moved into a multi-user forth collaborative universe.  we could code & talk at the same time
10:25:27 <onetom> MrReach: right then
10:25:51 * onetom goes 2 work
10:25:57 <onetom> cul8r
10:26:16 <MrReach> futhin: it makes sense, I'm probably not going to use forth in my future projects, I'm not going to write a system, I'm only using forth in one of my current projects ... so I'm not really qualified to say what forth needs or doesn't need
10:27:47 <MrReach> my major contribution to this channel is that I sometimes poke I440r into staying compatible with ANS ... which is not really that great an accomplishment
10:28:13 <I440r> hehe
10:28:19 <tathi> :)
10:28:21 <I440r> mrreach your input here is welcome
10:28:26 <MrReach> well, I know forth inside out, and sometimes get to answer a tricky question
10:28:29 <I440r> if you were to leave #forth would lose something
10:28:56 <I440r> and lets face it - when have you actually poked me into being more compatible with the ans std :P
10:28:57 <I440r> lol
10:29:04 <MrReach> yes, but I wonder what the point of contribution is in the long run
10:29:28 <MrReach> I440r: got you to rename your CASE
10:30:13 <I440r> not so im compliant with ans :P
10:30:14 <MrReach> a couple of others that I forget, too, like i said, it's not a huge accomplishment because it's so easy to be ANS compliant
10:30:26 <I440r> i didnt change the name of my case to be more ans compliant hehe
10:30:50 <MrReach> ok
10:31:49 <I440r> i changed it because not doing so might confuse other coders
10:31:58 <I440r> my case IS diffierent so...
10:32:07 <MrReach> right, which is exactly what ANS is about
10:32:29 <MrReach> it appears that you still miss the point
10:33:06 <MrReach> parden my saying it so bluntly
10:33:25 <I440r> lol no - ans has some other features that try HURD people into things i consider bad
10:33:49 <I440r> like wanting the SYSTEM hidden from the application coder
10:34:02 <I440r> you cand to r>drop to skip a return level
10:34:13 <I440r> : foo  r> drop ;
10:34:23 <I440r> isnt guaranteed to discard its own returnn address
10:35:13 <MrReach> correct
10:35:17 <onetom> 4 the curious, some hack of mine in tcl (a modified dotfile generator): http://hermantom.homeip.net/~tom/controller.jpg
10:35:28 <I440r> very very very BAD
10:35:42 <MrReach> knowing the system is a liability to a coder hoping to port his app to a different platform/system
10:35:47 <I440r> not a liability
10:35:57 <I440r> NOT knowing the system is a liability
10:36:33 <MrReach> even ONE system-depent phrase must be translated for each system ported to
10:36:56 <I440r> and ?
10:37:00 <I440r> your point is ??? :)
10:37:05 <MrReach> that begins to look like an exponential work-curve ... dependencies X systems
10:37:15 <I440r> so instead of that. you have to
10:37:20 <I440r> #ifdefined some-system
10:37:24 <I440r>   do this
10:37:27 <I440r> #slse
10:37:29 <I440r>   do that
10:37:32 <I440r> #then
10:37:41 <I440r> and dont tell me you dont have that sort of shit in forth
10:37:42 <I440r> you DO
10:37:51 <onetom> futhin: have u checked /~guest/forth/fsock/{scheme.txt,s,c} ?
10:37:51 <MrReach> no, write it in a system-independent manner, if you can ... then never worry about it again
10:38:06 <MrReach> well, *I* don't
10:38:09 <I440r> ive seen code that needs conditionals for iforth, pfe, etc, etc, etc
10:38:24 <I440r> i.e dont bothere learning the language or the system
10:38:27 <I440r> just write the code ?
10:38:55 <MrReach> if it can be written with no system dependencies, then it should be written that way
10:39:08 <MrReach> sometimes one is forced, though
10:39:11 <futhin> mrreach: don't leave :/  help us extend forth to a usable level
10:39:33 <MrReach> but we all disagree on what is needed ... it's pointless
10:39:49 <futhin> not really, we aren't organized about it
10:39:51 <I440r> er  mrreach - #forth has alot of differing points of view
10:39:56 <I440r> but we have a product
10:39:57 <MrReach> yes
10:39:59 <I440r> #tunes doesnt
10:40:05 <MrReach> oh, good point
10:40:42 <futhin> we might disagree on things, but that is good, because when we get together to make something, all the differing viewpoints will let us build a better product
10:40:52 <futhin> because it forces each other to think outside of the box
10:41:03 <I440r> mrreach theres nothing to stop you from "correcting" isforth lol
10:41:20 <MrReach> at this point, I don't see anything wrong with it
10:41:22 <I440r> if you contributed an assembler it would be better tho imo :)
10:41:29 <MrReach> agreed
10:41:32 <MrReach> emphatically
10:41:48 * MrReach feels a rope around him, "ARG!"
10:42:19 <futhin> stay around, code a little forth, etc...  i'm sure, eventually that some of us will get off our ass and make some groundbreaking advances in extending forth to a usable level
10:42:30 <I440r> lol
10:42:43 <I440r> you can check out any time you like but you can NEVER leave :)
10:42:56 <MrReach> I was actually thinking about an API to manage assembling segments for ELF/NE executables
10:43:32 <I440r> mrreach before you do that let me tell you what i plan for isforth
10:43:39 <I440r> each vocabulary will have its own HERE
10:43:47 <MrReach> such an API would make SAVE-SYSTEM much easier
10:43:49 <I440r> and a 'transient' flag
10:43:57 <I440r> each will be saved to its own elf section
10:44:08 <MrReach> yep, I know that
10:44:09 <I440r> i dont know if ill fragment head space in the same way tho
10:44:21 <MrReach> no need to
10:44:23 <I440r> i might just lump all headers into ONE section
10:44:32 <I440r> but vocabs will have their own section
10:44:43 <I440r> if a vocab is marked as transient....
10:44:46 <MrReach> you know, that's a paradigm that TCL uses, and it works *WAY* good
10:44:51 <I440r> vocabulary foo foo definitions transient
10:44:56 <I440r> it will be dumped on turnkey
10:45:00 <MrReach> you should think about this for a little bit
10:45:02 <I440r> that whole section will not exist
10:45:07 <herkamire> I440r: some people really value being able to program with no system dependancies. They can just learn the language and use it. That's what Java is all about I think. We *could* create an environment like htat in forth.
10:45:38 <I440r> herk java isnt a programming language :P
10:45:38 <I440r> heh
10:45:45 <I440r> its on a par with vb :P
10:45:46 <MrReach> hopefully smaller/faster than java
10:46:10 <I440r> actually a java interpreter can be embedded. 
10:46:25 <MrReach> I440r: I'd like to describe something that really isn't forth, but worth thinking about anyway
10:46:39 <onetom> futhin: ~guest/s
10:46:58 <onetom> futhin: ~guest/forth/fsock/s
10:47:00 <onetom> futhin: ~guest/forth/fsock/c
10:47:08 <MrReach> imagine a system where each word gets it's own memory segment ... possibly two ... one for head and one for code
10:47:38 <MrReach> each word is an entity in it's own right
10:47:59 <MrReach> and can be deleted, renamed, replaced seperately from all other words
10:49:01 <MrReach> if yoiu redefine DUP in the FORTH vocab, it replaces the previous version, and all words calling DUP call the new version
10:49:04 --- join: XeF4 (~xef4@dsl-XIV-238.kotikaista.weppi.fi) joined #forth
10:49:25 <I440r> i.e. everything is a defered word :)
10:49:33 <MrReach> but defining DUP in the DOHICKY vocab doesn't replace it
10:49:44 <MrReach> but overrides it
10:49:47 <I440r> xef4!
10:49:52 <MrReach> greets, XeF4
10:49:59 <XeF4> greets, Reach, I440r
10:50:24 <I440r> :)
10:50:59 <MrReach> it's a different KIND of distionary management
10:51:03 <herkamire> I440r: java is a programming language. it dosen't usually translate into a machine language
10:51:23 <MrReach> one of the implementation details would have to be a dispatch table for each vcab
10:51:30 <herkamire> I440r: what is your definition of a programming language???
10:51:30 <I440r> herk it was said in humor heh - even vb is a programming language - of sorts :P
10:51:54 <I440r> herk there are only TWO real ones... assembler and forth
10:52:00 <herkamire> vb is definately a programming language. it's just one of the crappiest I've ever seen
10:52:00 <I440r> nothing else is real - its all ficticious :P
10:52:05 <I440r> its LIES i tell you!
10:52:22 <herkamire> it's crap, but unfortunately it exists
10:52:29 <I440r> or. as churchil stated it
10:52:41 <I440r> terminalogicl inexactitudes
10:52:43 <MrReach> I440r: so, to get the old behavior, you'd have to do somthing like ['] DUP RENAME: olddup    : DUP ... olddup ... ;
10:53:22 <I440r> or have everything as a defered word where the default action is what you put between : and ; hehe
10:53:33 <I440r> if you redefine it you are realy just revectoring it
10:53:39 <I440r> ok... lead on....
10:53:58 <MrReach> correct, because the dispatch table would point to a new bit of code
10:54:11 <XeF4> I440r: how is that different from token threading?
10:54:13 <MrReach> (threaded however you wish, that's outside the scope of this idea)
10:54:37 <MrReach> well, it would end up as a type of token threading, *BUT*
10:55:07 <MrReach> that's not the point, the changes in dictionary management would cause a change in how people think of the language
10:55:16 <I440r> xef4 mrreach is talking about any new definitions replace old ones. so any calls to the old defs get redirected tot eh new def and the old def disappears
10:55:32 <MrReach> or renaming the old def
10:55:59 <MrReach> AND defs with different vocabs would still retain their contextual meaning
10:56:34 <I440r> so you can have 'and' in forth forth and assembler but if you redefine it in either - you replace it
10:56:36 * herkamire is back (gone 00:31:07)
10:56:39 <herkamire> gosh, I've been away so long...
10:56:45 <MrReach> no, not at all
10:57:07 <MrReach> AND would have seperate defs in seperate vocabs
10:57:34 <MrReach> if you redefined AND in the FORTH vocab, you would change that one, and all the words that used that one
10:58:01 <I440r> yes
10:58:06 <MrReach> the AND in the ASSEMBLER vocab would remain unchanged, unless it called the AND in the FORTH vocab
10:58:14 <I440r> 'and in forth and 'and' in assembler are seperate entities
10:58:22 <I440r> ok - how would this be better than say
10:58:23 <MrReach> correct
10:58:26 <I440r> : foo .....  ;
10:58:39 <I440r> : xxx .... fooo .... ; 
10:58:44 <MrReach> nono< I can't figure out if this has any advantages ...
10:58:44 <I440r> : foo ..... ;
10:58:50 <I440r> : yyy ... foo ... ;
10:58:59 <MrReach> but I think it's an idea worth thinking about
10:59:00 <I440r> where yyy references the second definition of foo not the first
10:59:04 <I440r> ok
10:59:07 <I440r> yes
10:59:18 <MrReach> because ...
10:59:19 <I440r> it would be less confusing to a non forther heh
10:59:30 <MrReach> the dict keeps GRWOING, no matter what
10:59:47 <MrReach> once a def is in the dict, it's set in stone
10:59:47 <I440r> ok heres the problem
10:59:58 <XeF4> better to have a SIMPLE facility for changing word behaviour by XT reference
10:59:59 <I440r> how would you free up the old definition
11:00:10 <I440r> you cant overwrite it becahse the new def might be larger
11:00:17 <MrReach> while replacing it?
11:00:19 <I440r> you have dictionary fragmentation problems now
11:00:21 <I440r> yes
11:00:24 <I440r> : xxx ...... ;
11:00:29 <I440r> : yyy ....... ;
11:00:33 <I440r> : zzz ...... ;
11:00:35 <MrReach> that's correct, but still not biggie ... like this ...
11:00:36 <I440r> : xxx ... ;
11:01:09 <I440r> the new xxx is smaller so it can overwrite but now you have some unuesd space etc
11:01:24 <MrReach> first, compile the new definition into a smallish black of allocated memory, if failure, then deallocate and throw something
11:01:37 <MrReach> s/black/block
11:02:17 <MrReach> if successful, change the execution vector to point at the new code region, then deallocate the previous sement of memory
11:02:22 <I440r> mrreach i was coding a forth that would write directly into flash - the new defs would be coded into a ram buffer and not get flashed till ; - somethingllike this ?
11:02:35 <MrReach> the header segment of mem needn't be touched
11:02:48 <MrReach> yes
11:03:13 <I440r> defined if overwite else create then ? heh
11:03:21 <MrReach> and you're right, there *WOULD* be some fragmentation, but that gets cleaned up each time the system is restarted
11:03:44 <I440r> aha so part of the system boot would be to relocate all definitions :)
11:03:52 <MrReach> also, nearly all compilation is done at startup, seldom when the app is runing
11:03:56 <I440r> well isforth already does that with headers :)
11:04:18 <MrReach> so fragmentation shouldn't be a total killer
11:04:24 <I440r> no.
11:04:53 <MrReach> heh, unless you're doing Genetic Algorithyms or something
11:05:00 <I440r> lol
11:05:00 <XeF4> MrReach: and what if I use my system for generating genetic graphic art for weeks continuously?
11:05:11 <MrReach> of course, such a think can't be called "Forth"
11:05:11 * XeF4 does
11:05:22 <I440r> it can
11:05:28 <I440r> if ans can call itself forth
11:05:35 <futhin> bah
11:05:40 <I440r> chuck says that the ans standard doesnt describe forth
11:05:45 <I440r> but a language with the same name
11:05:45 <futhin> yup
11:05:47 <I440r> i agree
11:05:52 <futhin> i agree too
11:05:55 <MrReach> XeF4: I understand that anyone can figure out a way to tax/break a system
11:06:30 <MrReach> XeF4: does you're program define/redefine 10s of thousands of forth words??
11:06:46 <MrReach> as it is, the dictionary would keep growing and growing
11:07:14 <I440r> mrreach sometimes being able to flip a defered word between two diferent definitions is useful :)
11:07:19 <MrReach> no, one of the premises is that forth words always behave the same
11:07:27 <XeF4> MrReach: yes, this is why I am working on my own colorforth with (simple) copying GC
11:07:34 <I440r> er - no it isnt
11:07:44 <I440r> key for instance
11:07:48 <I440r> and emit
11:07:53 <I440r> key MIGHT read the keyboard
11:07:57 <MrReach> ok, this doesn't preclude defered words, they would still act as they always had
11:07:57 <I440r> but it might also read a file
11:08:07 <I440r> emit might got to the console but it might also go to a printer or a file
11:08:17 <MrReach> understood
11:08:34 <MrReach> it would sure make development of apps much easier
11:08:52 <MrReach> just redefine all the words with new behavior and try again
11:08:55 <I440r> maybe - i cant see your scenario as a BAD thing but
11:09:22 <I440r> it might not be as easy to implement as it looks to be
11:09:31 <MrReach> right
11:09:51 <MrReach> actually, this model is much closer to Java and TCL than forth usually is
11:10:13 <MrReach> but these languages have some advantages
11:10:20 <I440r> tho ease of development should not be an issue for system writers
11:10:31 <I440r> ease of development WITH the system should be
11:10:33 <MrReach> APP writers, I440r
11:10:41 <MrReach> oh, ok, yes
11:10:48 <I440r> lol
11:11:05 <XeF4> I440r: it should, because if you have something as cumbersome as C, system writers tire out early and write buggy systems
11:11:07 <I440r> if i do something very very difficult that will make writing apps with isforht easier - its a good thing
11:11:20 <I440r> if i do somethign very simple thats very difficult to acuytlly use... its bad
11:11:24 <MrReach> when writing an app, I sometimes find the forth environment a little awkward
11:11:39 <I440r> xef4 does> is a very complex word
11:11:46 <I440r> but its a very useful one
11:11:49 <I440r> tho - not required
11:11:50 <MrReach> erm ... it's complex to use
11:11:54 <I440r> no its not
11:12:01 <futhin> it's not complex :P
11:12:04 <MrReach> fairly easy to implement
11:12:14 <I440r> does> is easy to use. i used it for years without understahnding HOW it worked heh
11:12:20 <I440r> HOW it works is very complex
11:12:38 <MrReach> heh, we seem to be at polor opposites again
11:12:39 <I440r> they are talking about using multiple does> parts in clf now
11:12:41 <futhin> all does> does is put code inside the word in the dictionary
11:12:58 <I440r> so each time you use the does word it runs the following does> part
11:12:59 <MrReach> I440r: my structures package uses multiple does>
11:13:03 <I440r> sounds like bullshit to me
11:13:21 <I440r> : foo create xxx does> yyy does> zzz ;
11:13:24 <I440r> er. wtf
11:13:24 <I440r> heh
11:13:42 <I440r> i cant see how thats of any use at all heh
11:13:44 <futhin> word dictionary:    <header> <code>    does> thisiscode -->  <header> <thisiscode>
11:13:44 <MrReach> one for defining the defining words, one for what the words the defining words build should do
11:13:50 <I440r> ill have to take another look at your structures code
11:14:11 <MrReach> 1 field: byte:
11:14:20 <MrReach> 2 field: word:
11:14:25 <MrReach> 4 field: cell:
11:14:46 <MrReach> 25 byte: lname
11:14:53 <I440r> mrreach i saw someone talk about DETERMINING the size of a cell at RUN time
11:14:55 <MrReach> 40 byte: fmname
11:15:06 <MrReach> 40 byte: addr1
11:15:10 <I440r> that has some use but i think CELL is a bullshit word
11:15:14 <I440r> and cells too
11:15:28 <I440r> isforth defines neither
11:15:35 <MrReach> the first does> stores the field size into the created words (byte: in this case)
11:15:40 <I440r> because isforth is a THIRTYTWO bit forth
11:15:47 <I440r> one already knows the size of a cell
11:15:55 <MrReach> the second does is for what words created by byte: are supposed to do 
11:16:29 <futhin> i440r: what if the coder forgets the cell size?  how is he going to get the cell size if there is no CELL ?
11:16:48 <I440r> futhin a 'cell' is how big in a 32 bit system again ?
11:16:49 <I440r> i forget
11:16:59 <MrReach> well, I need three names for 8, 16, and 32 bit storage areas
11:17:09 <MrReach> CELL .
11:17:13 <futhin> i440r: it's 32, but if the coder doesn't know it's a 32 bit system, he's fucked
11:17:22 <I440r> good
11:17:26 <I440r> he should be
11:17:28 <MrReach> it's usually four
11:17:30 <futhin> heheh
11:17:38 <XeF4> if the coder doesn't know what machine word size he has on his system, he is really fucked.
11:17:46 <MrReach> for a 32 bit system, unless a "byte" is not 8 bits
11:17:50 <I440r> refer back to my 'not knowing the system or the language' statement
11:18:05 <I440r> mrreach a byte is ALWAYS 8 bits
11:18:05 <futhin> yeah, but the coder could just type "CELL" and viola, he knows what the system is
11:18:19 <I440r> a 4 bit system uses 2 nibbles for a byte
11:18:26 <Speuler> 'evening
11:18:26 <I440r> a 6 bit system cant use bytes
11:18:29 <MrReach> anyway, I was talking of multiple DOES> ... not about the validity of CELL
11:18:30 <I440r> bongo :)
11:18:35 <MrReach> greets, Speuler
11:18:35 <I440r> yes heh
11:18:43 <Speuler> hi gang :)
11:19:15 <futhin> speuler: how's your brainf**k forth implementation going? :)
11:19:31 <MrReach> and also the idea of a rather more flexible dictionary
11:19:33 <Speuler> what about writing  $0123456789abcdef  to addr, reading addr+1, and determine machine word size that way ?
11:19:41 <I440r> oh yea - when you finish it i want to port it to isforth and make it part of the isforth kernel :) hehe
11:19:51 <I440r> every forth should also be a brainfuck :)
11:20:09 <futhin> eh
11:20:19 <futhin> i thought speuler was implementing forth inside brainfuck
11:20:21 <XeF4>  I440r: OTOH, how do you plan to get app-level portability  between all those different endian and word-size isforths without CELL and friends?
11:20:33 <Speuler> futhin: haven't been working on it for a while.
11:20:41 <Speuler> futhin: last thing i did was the memory interface
11:20:45 <futhin> speuler: ah, what have you been working on?
11:20:55 <MrReach> simple, he doesn't write portable code at all
11:20:59 <I440r> xef4 eh? who cares! rewrite it - this isnt c - rewriting isnt such a big deal
11:21:07 <MrReach> he things code should be optimised for the machine it runs on
11:21:07 <I440r> start over. write it again. no problem
11:21:14 <Speuler> (absolute addresses, rather than relative, inc/dec based addresses
11:21:32 <Speuler> and i wrote an optimizing translator
11:21:47 <XeF4> I440r: so you retract your app-level portabiliy plans?
11:21:52 <MrReach> not an invalid perspective, but I'm never likely to use his code in win32forth
11:21:55 <Speuler> compresses things like multiple incs, decs, copy, clear etc into single instructions
11:22:10 <Speuler> translates to basic, forth, assembler
11:22:18 * MrReach laughs.
11:22:21 <I440r> xef4 all apps written for x86 isforth - will run on ppc isforth
11:22:29 <I440r> i could care less if they ran in gforth or not
11:23:21 <MrReach> the prob with CELL is that it must be rigorously applied
11:23:21 <Speuler> futhin: been busy with internet cafe. new machines are here now. bought some new network infrastructure
11:23:29 <Speuler> gbit stuff 
11:24:06 <Speuler> multi-nics
11:24:15 <MrReach> nice
11:24:30 <MrReach> were you getting some slowdowns on your intranet?
11:24:40 <MrReach> why upgrade?
11:24:41 <Speuler> thought i better do wrong investment now than later
11:24:54 <Speuler> new machines are diskless 
11:24:54 <I440r> speuler you runnign yor own inet cafe now ?
11:25:05 <Speuler> boot server, nfs root
11:25:07 <XeF4> I440r: will the PPC isforth also be 32-bit?
11:25:11 * MrReach nods.
11:25:13 <Speuler> lots more traffic on the net
11:25:21 <I440r> xef4 eh ?
11:25:29 <Speuler> I440r: not my own.
11:25:33 <Speuler> (not yet:)
11:25:36 <MrReach> the fiber stuff is coming down in price, too
11:25:52 <Speuler> MrReach: not sure whether that would be of big advantage
11:25:56 <MrReach> Speuler: you thinking of buying out the owner???
11:25:58 <Speuler> opper gbit line is 3 meters
11:26:16 <Speuler> MrReach: there are 2 cafe's now. 20 intended
11:26:23 <MrReach> you mean 30 meters?
11:26:26 <Speuler> i go for ownership particiapation
11:26:37 <Speuler> 3 meters, to gbit switch
11:26:48 <Speuler> will go 100 mbit to 100 mbit switches
11:26:51 <MrReach> ok, not very far
11:26:57 <XeF4> I440r: newer PPCs are , afaik, 64-bit
11:27:09 <futhin> yup, that is correct i think
11:27:11 <MrReach> oh! you mean your application is 3 meters, not the max length!
11:28:00 <Speuler> max len should be about 15 meters with copper
11:28:04 <MrReach> so you've got switches with 16 100/10BT ports, and a gigabit uplink port??
11:28:11 <Speuler> 500 or 1000 with optical fiber
11:28:17 * MrReach nods.
11:28:25 <Speuler> but, as i use a 3 meter copper line, no need for fiber
11:28:37 <Speuler> wireless gets cheap.
11:28:38 <I440r> so are newer pc's heh
11:28:43 <Speuler> about 60 $ for pci card
11:29:11 <MrReach> yes, the guy who is selling me the computer store is building a national wireless network
11:29:47 <futhin> that must be a huge investment..
11:30:00 <MrReach> no, actually, it's almost a $0 investment
11:30:05 <futhin> buying all the wireless transmitter and reciever stations.. ?
11:30:30 <Speuler> compared to digging trenches, putting in cables, it should be very cheap indeed
11:31:05 <Speuler> i'd think there's a future for wireless isps
11:31:07 <MrReach> here's the deal, you are traveling, you stop at a Starbuck's or at a McDonald's that displays his logo ... you pay $5/hr and you can link up with your laptop and a wireless modem
11:31:31 <Speuler> was considereing to travel that route myself
11:31:35 <Speuler> with the cafe
11:32:02 <Speuler> cafe goes international
11:32:10 <Speuler> nothern africa, eastern europe
11:32:20 <MrReach> now, on the installation end, the business is expected to already have an internet connection, maybe for other reasons altogether (talking to corporate headquarters)
11:32:21 <Speuler> bad telecom infrastructure
11:32:45 <Speuler> wireless with dish gives you about 40 miles
11:32:59 <MrReach> there's a $200 installation fee charged to the store ... that takes care of the hours the tech needs to install antenae
11:33:20 <MrReach> then a $3/mo rental fee
11:33:44 <MrReach> 2 years pays for the antenae, and the rest is profit
11:34:24 <MrReach> I can't recall if you had to use his $14.95/mo internet service or not
11:34:43 <MrReach> heh, I probably shouldn't be saying any of this
11:35:31 <futhin> heh
11:35:44 <Speuler> being geographically separated, we won't compete
11:36:01 <MrReach> no, but a lot of people in this channel now
11:36:15 <MrReach> and it's a matter of courtesy and professionalism
11:37:02 <MrReach> anyway, I gotta head down there, wanna see what type of business comes on Saturdays
11:37:08 <Speuler> courtesy when money is involved ?
11:37:25 <MrReach> heh
11:37:30 <Speuler> well yes mrdaydreamer you're right :)
11:38:10 <MrReach> I do not hold myself to the standards that others choose for themselves
11:38:30 <MrReach> sometimes I am more ethical, sometimes less
11:50:56 <futhin> ethics is important when it comes to coding, will you be a purist and code in forth or will you be evil and code in vb? :)
11:58:49 <futhin> does forth provide any commands for drawing any graphics at all  ?
11:59:01 <futhin> any commands for turning on a pixel.. ?
11:59:16 <futhin> without resorting to asm ?
11:59:49 <XeF4> depends on the forth.
12:00:39 <XeF4> colorforth yes, Enth >= 0.3.00 yes, Win32 abominations probably, and I have written an fbcon vocabulary for bigforth
12:35:35 --- nick: Fare -> Fare61453
13:11:49 <I440r> mrreach are you on dal ?
13:11:54 <I440r> i cant seem to connect
13:11:55 <I440r> grr
13:14:03 <futhin> ./server jade.va.us.dal.net
13:14:09 <futhin> always works for me
13:16:41 <I440r> yup thats working i think
13:16:50 <I440r> i usually just do irc.dal.net or us.dal.net
13:17:01 <I440r> nope
13:17:02 <I440r> not working
13:17:10 <I440r> its just doing an immediate "connection timed out"
13:19:19 <I440r> nope
13:19:24 <I440r> i cant connect to that either
13:20:20 <futhin> yeah well, why the hell are you trying to get on dalnet?  #forth is all you need :P
13:20:47 <I440r> shaddap or ill ban you :P
13:20:52 <futhin> heh
13:22:44 <I440r> neway i gtg to stores dammit - bbl :)
13:22:47 --- quit: I440r ("brb")
13:59:33 --- quit: XeF4 ("pois")
14:25:36 --- quit: herkamire ("Client Exiting")
14:54:31 --- quit: tathi ("Client Exiting")
14:56:40 --- quit: onetom (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
15:02:23 --- join: onetom (tom@adsl52032.vnet.hu) joined #forth
15:19:34 --- nick: Fare61453 -> Fare
16:17:16 --- join: TheBlueWizard (TheBlueWiz@ip-216-25-205-132.vienna.va.fcc.net) joined #forth
16:17:16 --- mode: ChanServ set +o TheBlueWizard
16:17:21 <TheBlueWizard> hiya all
16:18:48 <rob_ert> Hi :)
16:19:25 <TheBlueWizard> hiya rob_ert
16:26:11 --- join: I440r (~mark4@1Cust19.tnt1.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth
16:26:12 --- mode: ChanServ set +o I440r
16:26:20 <rob_ert> :)
16:27:08 <TheBlueWizard> hiya I440r!!!
16:27:08 <I440r> tbw!
16:27:08 <I440r> rob :)
16:27:31 <rob_ert> Yah!
16:27:35 <TheBlueWizard> heh
16:27:45 <rob_ert> Fresh pic of me for you all: http://ostling.no-ip.com/images/robert.jpg
16:28:26 * TheBlueWizard zooms over to view the pic
16:29:01 <I440r> i still got 4 hours of apt-get upgrade going heh - remind me of url later and ill check it out :)
16:29:45 --- quit: davidw (Read error: 113 (No route to host))
16:30:13 <rob_ert> Hehe
16:30:23 <TheBlueWizard> heh....um, is this cylinder cement thingie your home, rob_ert? (ducking ;)
16:30:38 <rob_ert> TheBlueWizard: Actually, I share it with a couple of friends.
16:30:48 <TheBlueWizard> lol
16:31:30 <rob_ert> http://ostling.no-ip.com/images/matte.jpg <-- It's true! Here's one of the guys
16:34:10 --- quit: Speuler (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
16:34:34 * TheBlueWizard zooms over to view another pic
16:35:34 <TheBlueWizard> hmm...ok, I see you've made those cement objects your precious little community :)   human prarie dogs, eh? :)
16:35:59 <rob_ert> Yeah... no money - no trouble.
16:36:09 <TheBlueWizard> lol
16:36:10 <rob_ert> Our own anarchist society on the city dump.
16:37:37 <TheBlueWizard> you know, there are all sorts of microstates on Net nowadays...I know one: Kingdom of Talossa...it is outrageous :)
16:38:13 <rob_ert> Kingdoms on the internet? Man, some people have to get theirselves something to do!
16:39:05 <TheBlueWizard> Forth on Net? Man, some people have to get theirselves something to do! (mocking tone)
16:39:29 <I440r> lol
16:39:39 <rob_ert> Forth = something to do. Sitting on a non-existting trone = nothing to do.
16:39:47 <rob_ert> non-existing*
16:40:40 <TheBlueWizard> heh
16:41:55 <rob_ert> It's true. What you're doing is _not_ normal, TheBlueWizard :)
16:42:21 * rob_ert starts singing Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da very loud.
16:42:24 <TheBlueWizard> lol...and am damn proud of it
16:58:32 --- nick: Fare -> Fare3053
17:26:14 --- quit: rob_ert ("(:")
17:45:10 --- nick: Fare3053 -> Fare
17:46:10 <TheBlueWizard> hiya Fare
17:55:11 <I440r> wb fare
17:57:13 <TheBlueWizard> hiya I440r hehe
18:08:18 <I440r> :P
18:33:40 <futhin> hihi
18:33:54 * MrReach nods.
18:34:06 <TheBlueWizard> hiya futhin
18:34:09 <TheBlueWizard> hiya MrReach
18:34:56 <futhin> thebluewizard: kingdom on the net? that sounds cool
18:35:06 <futhin> maybe i should start up one
18:35:07 <I440r> mrreach is there any GOOD opcode reference for ia32 ?
18:35:07 <futhin> ooooh
18:35:12 <futhin> ;)
18:35:22 <I440r> something that doesnt require you to read 24896529845982 gigs of bullshit to get all the info ?
18:35:29 <futhin> lies
18:35:31 <futhin> no such thing
18:35:38 <MrReach> you mean other than the programmer's reference manual???
18:35:39 <futhin> if such a thing were made, the world would end
18:35:51 <I440r> specificaly OTHER than that pile of shit.... yes
18:36:10 <I440r> 2839429834598246924 pages of SHIT with 3 pages worth of usful info 
18:36:18 <MrReach> I don't know why they don't publish that  in HTML ... but the copyright restrictions probably prevent me from converting it myself
18:36:20 <TheBlueWizard> futhin: do a google on either microstate or on "kingdom talossa"
18:37:00 <MrReach> I440r: no, I don't. There's some quick references out there on the net, but they are seldom complete
18:37:00 <TheBlueWizard> hmm...I thought I saw a good x86 opcode stuff...lemme scrounge around...
18:37:10 <I440r> foo :(
18:37:18 <MrReach> what about the manual for NASM?
18:37:22 <I440r> er
18:37:25 <I440r> fuck nasm
18:37:35 <I440r> i looked at its sources for all of 5 minutes
18:37:37 <MrReach> no, the manual describing the instruction set
18:37:38 <futhin> thebluewizard: eh, the talossa government has elections and stuff.. doesn't sound very much like a kingdom
18:37:39 <I440r> blah blah blah
18:37:45 <TheBlueWizard> I440r wants a compact table
18:38:05 <I440r> its a manual
18:38:10 <I440r> it has all the info in it
18:38:19 <I440r> to get all related info you have to read the whole manual
18:38:27 <TheBlueWizard> futhin: yeah...it is a constitional monarchy...it all started with a guy declaring a secession of his bedroom from USA :D
18:38:28 <I440r> if the info was well represented it would be easy to follow
18:38:36 <I440r> but its not
18:38:57 <I440r> and im in no mood to wade through 500 pages of badly written shit
18:39:11 <I440r> with all the good titbits of info scattered
18:39:32 <MrReach> actually, I thought the Intel docs were well written, but maybe that's because I knew the guy that wrote them.
18:39:40 <I440r> all i care about is one table giving all instructions plus their encoding
18:39:56 <MrReach> look at the opcode chart in the manual
18:39:56 <TheBlueWizard> well, a blow-by-blow detailed info on each opcode amount to getting ahold of a book...you might as well get an Intel PDF....
18:40:06 <I440r> and i dont want something that does
18:40:13 <I440r> aaa   opcode  blah blah
18:40:18 <I440r> 3 pages of description
18:40:18 <MrReach> look at the opcode chart in the manual
18:40:22 <I440r> fuck the description
18:40:24 <I440r> i have
18:40:34 <MrReach> it's after the instruction set description
18:40:37 <I440r> actually the whole fucking idea is pissing me off big time
18:40:55 <I440r> im getting more and more frustrated over it
18:41:01 <MrReach> in table form, LSNibble across the top, MSNibble down the side
18:41:05 <I440r> intel USED to write realy fucking good dox
18:41:21 <I440r> now they are overly verbose and spend 50% of their time telling you how great intel is
18:41:25 <TheBlueWizard> I only have a 386 doc hehe
18:42:04 <I440r> every time i try write an assembler i get lost in a sea of bullshit and get tied up in knowts and eventaully say 
18:42:05 <I440r> FUCK IT
18:42:19 <MrReach> so I see
18:43:02 <TheBlueWizard> I have a 386 assembler written in Forth that I obtained from UseNet some time ago...wanna that for a start?
18:43:25 <futhin> there are a few assemblers for forth out there
18:43:31 <MrReach> I440r: you decided to bite the bullet???
18:43:35 <futhin> surely you can grab a few and adapt one of them..
18:43:47 <MrReach> they are rather hard to understand
18:43:52 * TheBlueWizard hasn't tried out that assembler stuff hehe
18:44:15 <TheBlueWizard> tho' it looks rather well done...haven't examined it closely
18:44:17 <I440r> i doubt i can write the assembler
18:44:22 <I440r> not in a million years
18:44:35 <TheBlueWizard> lol...it ain't that bad
18:44:39 <I440r> i wouldnt know where to fucking begin
18:44:41 <MrReach> why are you fustrated with the instruction set, then?
18:44:50 <TheBlueWizard> of course the one I have uses Forth syntax
18:45:10 <I440r> because until i get an assembler isforth will proceed no further
18:45:19 <I440r> when i have an assembler isforth will continue
18:45:29 <I440r> i can see no point in continuing if i dont have an assembler
18:45:59 <I440r> not having an assembler has become a MAJOR pain in he ass
18:46:11 <I440r> i cant do what i want the way i want to because i cant code shit in asm
18:46:25 <I440r> unless i add the asm part to the kernel and have nasm assemble it
18:46:29 <I440r> im not playing that game
18:46:33 <I440r> if i never get an assembler
18:46:38 <I440r> isforth will never go any furthyer
18:47:26 <TheBlueWizard> I am confuzzled...you are presently using NASM to code IsForth, right?
18:48:34 <TheBlueWizard> and if I follow you, you want to develop a Forthish assembler to write IsForth in, right?
18:49:39 <futhin> i440r: what assembler do you need? 386?  486?  pentium?
18:49:54 <I440r> p4
18:49:55 <I440r> mmx
18:49:56 <futhin> Starting Forth  has a very simple, very easy to understand assembler
18:49:58 <I440r> fpu
18:50:03 <I440r> 3dnow
18:50:07 <I440r> ALL instructions 
18:50:29 <I440r> and it has to support things like
18:50:33 <I440r> mov eax, 5
18:50:54 <I440r> if it doesnt support 5 # eax mov thats fine by me :)
18:51:07 <I440r> but i MUST support sane asm order
18:51:21 <TheBlueWizard> so you want a Forth program that support traditional, full blown assembler stuff...that's a lot of work...
18:51:48 <TheBlueWizard> s/support/assemble/
18:52:28 <I440r> and you think what i have in isforth NOW wasnt alot of work ?
18:53:25 <futhin> do you use all the instructions?
18:53:35 <futhin> why not start off with an assembler that has all the instructions you need
18:53:49 <TheBlueWizard> I wasn't saying IsForth wasn't a lot of work...it is a lot of work...but consider this:  you will have to allocate and deallocate bunch of data associate with source code, like local label names, temporary references, whatever
18:54:03 <I440r> futhin you want me to restrict what my users can and cannot do ?
18:54:11 <TheBlueWizard> not trivial
18:54:15 <I440r> i dont want a 'partial' asselbler
18:54:18 <futhin> i440r: the goal is to metacompile FIRST!
18:54:26 <futhin> then you can extend the assembler later
18:54:31 <futhin> or get somebody else to do it
18:54:43 <I440r> dood you tell me how i can get isforth to metacompile a kernel thats 99% assembler
18:54:48 <I440r> without a fucking assembler
18:54:51 --- join: herkamire (~jason@ip68-9-58-81.ri.ri.cox.net) joined #forth
18:55:26 <futhin> you aren't using all the assembly instructions to code isforth are you?
18:55:46 <futhin> why not just focus on a partial assembler that has all the instructions you used for isforth
18:55:53 <futhin> so you can get started with metacompiling
18:56:30 <I440r> fine
18:56:37 <I440r> ill accept a crippled assembler tobegin with
18:56:59 <I440r> ill even accept an assemblrer that only ahs 5 # eax mov to begin with
18:57:11 <I440r> to BEGIN with
18:57:14 <futhin> is that useful? :)
18:57:15 <TheBlueWizard> heh
18:57:19 <futhin> heh
18:57:34 <I440r> but until i have an assembler isforth is DEAD in the water
18:57:35 <I440r> period
18:58:48 <I440r> i also think if someone else writes the assembler it will utilize some word(S) that i have deliberatly not included in isforth
18:59:00 <I440r> so i shapp probably have to write the assembler myself
18:59:02 <I440r> so
18:59:11 <I440r> isforth is dead in the water for the next 4 or 5 years
18:59:29 <TheBlueWizard> I440r's rationale for wanting own assembler is to free IsForth from dependence on NASM, and thus from dependence on C compiler and on libc...thereby making it completely freestanding on its own....am I totally dead on the target?
18:59:54 <I440r> isforth is already free of all other libraries
19:00:04 <I440r> i can write apps in isforth any time i want
19:00:08 * TheBlueWizard nods
19:00:15 <I440r> and not rely on a single bloated lib
19:00:25 <I440r> but isforht cannot assemble coded definitions
19:00:34 <I440r> thats a crippled forth imho
19:00:45 <I440r> and its starting to become a nusence
19:01:01 <I440r> im continually being frustrated by not being able to CODE definitions
19:01:03 <TheBlueWizard> of course once assembled, IsForth is freestanding on its own...but to continue developing IsForth right now, one would need NASM....
19:01:31 <futhin> thebluewizard: send me a copy of the 386 assembler you have :)
19:01:34 <I440r> thats starting to become unacceptable to me
19:01:58 <TheBlueWizard> ok...metacompiling does help some (especially with code definitions)...but here's one good interim solution
19:03:13 <TheBlueWizard> oops...I brainfart...I mean to say COLON, not CODE
19:03:37 * TheBlueWizard turns on the fan to dissipate the bad smell
19:05:00 <TheBlueWizard> here's one interim approach to compiling a COLON definition...by writing it much like Forth, but slanting it towards assembler a bit...making parsing much easier
19:05:04 <TheBlueWizard> example:
19:06:49 <herkamire> when I compile the C program: int _start() { return 3; }
19:07:05 <herkamire> it makes a binary that is 14K
19:07:21 <TheBlueWizard> : WORD label: word_loop OVER C@ = 0BRANCH word_exit SWAP 1+ SWAP BRANCH word_loop label: word_exit ;
19:07:49 --- quit: I440r (Excess Flood)
19:08:05 --- join: I440r (~mark4@1Cust19.tnt1.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth
19:08:27 <TheBlueWizard> the little compiler will just crank out the assembler code by reading off the tokens, except for certain keyed ones, which it handles differently
19:08:55 <TheBlueWizard> I have some Python snippet which does that...I haven't worked on it in a long time hehe
19:09:37 <I440r> compiling the colon definitions is not the problem tho is it
19:11:56 * TheBlueWizard is looking for forth 386 assembler
19:15:55 <herkamire> the syntax for X86 assembly is much more complex than PPC (as is the instruction set)
19:16:37 <I440r> it took me about a half a day to write an 8051 disassembler
19:16:45 <I440r> i STILl couldnt write an 8051 assembler
19:16:51 <herkamire> even still, I don't think it would take 4 or 5 years to write an asembler that would work for the basic stuff you use all the time.
19:17:12 <I440r> basic stuff i use all the time like
19:17:27 <I440r> mov eax,[esi+4*ebx]
19:17:28 <I440r> or
19:17:29 <TheBlueWizard> hmm...couldn't find that assembler code...maybe it is on another machine? may have to fire up...but it is late night now :P
19:17:38 <I440r> jmp [esi+4*ebx]
19:18:15 <TheBlueWizard> and I wanna finish reading /. and K&K comix :)
19:18:37 <herkamire> kevin and kell?
19:21:00 <TheBlueWizard> yup
19:25:47 --- quit: I440r ("Reality Strikes Again")
19:33:13 --- join: I440r (~mark4@1Cust19.tnt1.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth
19:46:53 <herkamire> cool :) I've read some of them
19:49:27 <futhin> my favorite is www.angryflower.com   but you have to read a bunch of them before you get into them
19:49:46 <futhin> and most of them has been scanned poorly, so it's poor quality, but whatever
19:50:00 <TheBlueWizard> yeah...though it does getting used to at first...the notion of eating is rather peculiar....
19:50:03 <herkamire> I'll check it out some time
19:50:05 <futhin> generic assembler (but ugly coding)  http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst/asgen.frt
19:50:26 <futhin> er, it's not an assembler
19:50:34 <futhin> it's tools for making an assembler
19:50:35 <futhin> heh
19:52:08 <futhin> here's 386 assembler
19:52:09 <futhin> http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst/i86assembler.txt
19:52:16 <I440r> oh is that the guy that wrote that fucked up assembler ?
19:52:16 <I440r> heh
19:52:26 <I440r> with a realy fucked in the head but clever syntax?
19:52:46 <TheBlueWizard> lol
19:52:50 <I440r> no - i guess not
19:52:51 <I440r> heh
19:57:26 <futhin> gonna go, i haven't been productive at all today, blaming it on mirc :P
19:57:40 <TheBlueWizard> haha...bye Fare
19:57:47 <TheBlueWizard> oops...bye futhin
19:59:04 --- quit: futhin ("byebye")
20:26:03 --- quit: I440r ("Reality Strikes Again")
20:38:32 <TheBlueWizard> gotta sleep...bye all
20:38:36 --- part: TheBlueWizard left #forth
20:55:05 --- join: I440r (~mark4@1Cust19.tnt1.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth
21:34:28 --- join: futhin (~thin@h24-64-174-2.cg.shawcable.net) joined #forth
21:34:51 <futhin> hey need help
21:35:09 <futhin> somebody tell me why 105 emit and 1629516649 emit  both give me "i"   ??
21:35:41 <futhin> i'm fetching from a string, and i don't want to get a stupid number like 1629516649     i want to get 105 !!!
21:35:49 <futhin> i440r
21:35:52 <futhin> mrreach
21:35:53 <futhin> onetom
21:35:58 <futhin> herkamire
21:36:09 <futhin> (typing the names in the hope it beeps for you or something..)
21:36:55 <I440r> lol
21:36:57 <I440r> no beep
21:37:02 <futhin> ok
21:37:12 <futhin> so help me out here, this is fucked up behavior i'm getting..
21:37:58 <I440r> ?
21:38:20 <futhin> i did something like:  s" blahblah"   and then i'm taking that addr, adding 5 to it, and fetching the value located at the addr
21:38:39 <futhin> which means i've got a value on the stack which corresponds to "l"
21:38:48 <I440r> well i consider s" to be your first mistake
21:38:50 <futhin> and i type emit and it displays "l"
21:38:51 <I440r> try this instead
21:38:53 <I440r> create foo
21:38:58 <I440r>  ," blahblah"
21:39:04 <I440r> then do foo 5 + 
21:39:07 <I440r> or what ever
21:39:08 <futhin> but the value on the fucking stack, is a fucking 1629516649  instead of 105 !!
21:39:31 <I440r> did you do fetch or cfetch
21:39:40 <futhin> hm
21:39:44 <I440r> c@ 
21:39:46 <I440r> dummy
21:39:48 <I440r> :P
21:40:10 <futhin> heh :)
21:40:11 <futhin> works now
21:40:17 <I440r> lol
21:40:22 <futhin> hey what did i say!
21:40:30 <futhin> i ain't no real forth coder :P
21:40:38 <I440r> :)
21:41:29 <futhin> don't u diss s" tho :P
21:41:30 <I440r> btw - what forth are you doing this in ?
21:41:33 <futhin> gforth
21:41:34 <I440r> s" is bad
21:41:38 <I440r> trator!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
21:41:41 <futhin> heheh
21:41:48 <futhin> it's on my sourceforge account
21:41:53 <I440r> s" is a bad word
21:41:58 <futhin> it's a lot of hassle to get on the compile farm and compile a new forth
21:42:07 <futhin> which is why i haven't compiled isforth or bigforth
21:42:20 <futhin> what's wrong with s" ?
21:42:22 <I440r> rm -rf sourceforge
21:42:31 <futhin> yeah, but then i'd need a shell account
21:42:36 <I440r> install debian and have done with
21:42:38 <futhin> from somebody with a fast connection
21:42:40 <futhin> heh
21:42:48 <I440r> s" is bad. nuff sex
21:42:50 <I440r> sed
21:42:51 <futhin> not going to install linux for a few months..
21:42:58 <futhin> nuff sex? no such thing! :P
21:43:09 <I440r> never ennuff sex
21:43:09 <futhin> can't have enuff sex
21:43:22 <I440r> exactly
21:43:26 <futhin> heh
21:43:42 <futhin> does thebluewizard have a fast connection? ;)
21:43:54 <I440r> dunno
21:43:59 <I440r> fare does :)
21:44:04 <futhin> oooh ya
21:44:48 <futhin> i could get one of those tunes accounts
21:45:01 <futhin> nothing wrong with sourceforge tho
21:45:08 <futhin> except for lag occasionally
21:45:48 <onetom> futhin: as i saw the problem got fixed :) if there were a 4th tutorial faq this will b one of its questions
21:46:09 <futhin> heh
21:46:55 <onetom> futhin: u should try bigforth, i u wanna c something amusing!
21:47:13 <onetom> futhin: probably i could try 2 compile it to u
21:48:03 <I440r> bigforth is written in asm isnt it ?
21:48:03 <I440r> not c ?
21:48:19 <futhin> no idea..
21:48:25 <I440r> but its not free or something
21:48:29 <futhin> have you ever tried lina ?  supposed to be some linux forth
21:48:35 <futhin> fig-forth or something
21:48:43 <futhin> probably ooold
21:50:06 <I440r> im bored :(
21:50:07 <herkamire> http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst/lina.html
21:50:40 <futhin> create foo
21:50:47 <futhin> ," blah blah"
21:50:53 <futhin> does that leave a length on the stack?
21:51:36 <I440r> no
21:51:36 <I440r> you have to say
21:51:36 <I440r> foo count
21:52:20 <futhin> count remembers only the last string created right?
21:52:40 <I440r> no
21:52:45 <I440r> count takes an address
21:52:50 <I440r> the address of a counted string
21:52:50 <herkamire> I don't see what's wrang with s"... isn't it just:   : s" bl word ; ??
21:52:56 <I440r> foo is the address of the string
21:53:22 <onetom> I440r: bigFORTH is a native code Forth. It is available for Linux and Windows
21:53:25 <onetom> 95/98/NT under GPL.
21:53:26 <futhin> how the hell is count finding the end of the string?  don't tell me there's a terminating character at the end! :P
21:53:26 <I440r> : blah s" foo" blah blah ;
21:53:28 <I440r> is bad
21:54:00 <I440r> the string is IN THE WAY
21:54:16 <onetom> MINOS is available under the GPL, not the LGPL.
21:54:19 <futhin> a terminating character at the end of strings is bad :P
21:54:21 <I440r> its not like ." where the string is USED by (.") its just IN THE WAY
21:54:26 <I440r> you have to branch arround the string
21:54:36 <futhin> onetom: bigforth was coded in asm ?
21:54:41 <I440r> a non executable string does NOT belong in the instruction stream
21:54:47 <I440r> ." is an executable string
21:54:48 <onetom> so applications developed w its gui builder (MINOS) r not free
21:54:57 <onetom> futhin: dont know
21:55:05 <futhin> probably coded in c
21:55:09 <futhin> heh
21:55:23 <futhin> or uses a c wrapper
21:55:24 <futhin> or something
21:56:32 <futhin> somebody was looking at all the forths
21:56:36 <futhin> avail on linux
21:56:48 <futhin> and was looking for a pure forth or something
21:57:13 <futhin> and i remember him saying that bigforth uses a c wrapper or something
21:57:53 <futhin>  <onetom> so applications developed w its gui builder (MINOS) r not free
21:58:01 <futhin> you mean they _are_ free ?
21:58:31 <futhin> since both minos and bigforth are GPL'ed
21:58:35 <onetom> futhin: theres a bigforth.c, but its pretty close 2 assembly, and it has a bf_link() function (ithink dictionary linking code) for example, what is written in asm
21:58:59 <onetom> futhin: dont know, check http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/bigforth.html for urself
22:01:05 <onetom> I440r: probably writing bigforth in asm wouldnt worth the time so the most critical parts of it were directly coded in asm (and this is a good practice i think, coz C source is more compact than asm. this is undebatable, so dont even try 2 contradict :P )
22:01:27 <onetom> but i gotta go now soon
22:01:33 <I440r> onetom - blah
22:04:19 <onetom> I440r: why? how many times did u compared the C code w its asm counterpart?
22:04:31 <futhin> heh
22:04:35 <futhin> onetom: you are trolling :P
22:05:08 <I440r> onetom you forget i am a real time embedded control applications software engineer
22:05:30 <I440r> i compare code produced by c compilers and reverse engineer code produced by c compilers all the time
22:09:05 <futhin> my most precious two lines of asm code
22:09:05 <futhin> xor bl,20
22:09:06 <futhin> cmp al,bl
22:09:19 <onetom> I440r: im also an embedded applications software engineer - tho i dont compare c w asm that much as u - but compared just enough 2 c there is no reason for pure asm usually
22:09:22 <futhin> bwahahaa! ph33r the code! :P
22:09:44 <onetom> coz the space and the speed of C is just satisfactory
22:10:48 <onetom> futhin: iwas wrong, it seems there is a precompiled bigforth 4 win32! try it immediately! :)
22:11:32 <I440r> onetom have you ever written code to ramp up a stepper motor ? 
22:12:04 <I440r> or do manchester encoding and decoding at 1mbps for a 1553 bus ?
22:12:13 <I440r> on an 8051 
22:12:14 <futhin> onetom: heh :)
22:12:21 <I440r> using BIT banging
22:12:36 <onetom> I440r: hehe many times :)
22:13:13 <I440r> actualy ramping up a stepper motor is a fairly simple thing. you just use pwm basically
22:13:14 <onetom> I440r: imean, code 4 stepper motor
22:13:29 <onetom> pwm?
22:13:33 <onetom> why?
22:13:39 <I440r> try doing it usingonly one interrupt
22:13:57 <I440r> because its the width of the pulse that says what level you are at heh
22:14:02 --- quit: futhin ("brb")
22:14:20 <onetom> but how r all these related 2 the C<->asm problem?
22:14:22 <I440r> the 1553 bit banging is definatly non trivial
22:14:32 <onetom> it the controller is fast enough...
22:14:34 <I440r> write it in c - it will be very erratic
22:14:39 <I440r> write it in asm - it will be stable
22:14:49 <onetom> stable :)))))))
22:14:56 <I440r> the particular controler im talking about on both of these was an 8051
22:15:14 <onetom> if u cant write programs in C then dont do it, thats rights :P
22:15:23 <I440r> neway rite now im in a bit of a bad mood
22:15:29 <I440r> i cant write this assembler
22:15:35 <I440r> i never could write an assembler
22:15:54 <I440r> i know the instruction encodings for the 8051 almost by heart. inside out
22:15:57 <onetom> anyway, c compilers 4 micros usually compile very nice code
22:16:01 <I440r> i can disassemble 8051 in a snap
22:16:14 <I440r> i couldnt even BEGIN to write an 8051 assembler
22:16:43 <onetom> so nice, that u c infront of u the compiled asm code while typing the c
22:16:45 <onetom> code
22:18:09 <onetom> I440r: the most simple assembler is a list of all the available possible machine instructions
22:18:43 <onetom> assigned 2 asm like macros
22:18:53 <onetom> macronames
22:19:07 <I440r> like 1234+[ebx+4*ecx]
22:19:16 <onetom> yup
22:19:19 <onetom> certainly
22:19:21 <I440r> yes thats a SIMPLE opcode :P
22:19:29 <onetom> the constants will b parameters
22:19:36 <I440r> there are probably some more COMPLEX opcides
22:19:36 <I440r> but tahts NOT the only issye
22:19:43 <I440r> issue you cant do an assember like this
22:19:44 --- join: futhin (~thin@h24-64-174-2.cg.shawcable.net) joined #forth
22:19:46 <onetom> but eg, the registers wont 4 the 1st time
22:19:52 <futhin> weird, gforth doesn't have FORGET
22:19:55 <I440r> : aam aam-opcode c, ;
22:20:01 <I440r> it wont work
22:20:10 <onetom> and dont think of such a fuckin CISC monster like intel
22:20:13 <I440r> neither does isforth yet heh
22:20:15 <onetom> 4 the 1st time
22:20:39 <onetom> futhin: gforth have marker instead
22:20:48 <I440r> if isforth is to have an assembler it will REQUIRE complex opcodes like that
22:20:49 <onetom> futhin: look it up in its doc
22:20:53 <I440r> isforths kernel USES them
22:20:57 <I440r> ALOT
22:21:10 <I440r> xchg ebx, [esp]
22:22:41 <futhin> : test 15 for i . next ;   counts down from 15..    what if i want to count up from 0 to 15?
22:22:58 <I440r> er
22:22:58 <futhin> hm, i should look at my old sources for forth :P
22:23:04 <I440r> dont use for next
22:23:09 <I440r> its fucked in the head
22:23:12 <futhin> lies
22:23:16 <I440r> next is a totally fucking different thing
22:23:16 <futhin> chuck uses for next
22:23:21 <I440r> use do loops
22:23:29 <I440r> or being until
22:23:35 <futhin> jeez, don't name your next as next, name it something else
22:23:40 <I440r> NEXT is NOT a looping word
22:23:40 <futhin> leave next for "for next"
22:23:57 <futhin> the NEXT that is NOT a looping word is a stupid NEXT :P
22:24:02 <I440r> thats another word i REFUSE to implement
22:24:24 <I440r> people are fucking all over forth and its fucking pissing me of
22:24:26 <I440r> off
22:24:27 <futhin> save the NEXT word for the FOR NEXT  stuff :P
22:24:41 <futhin> rename the other NEXT into something else..
22:25:08 <futhin> why does chuck like FOR NEXT? 
22:25:13 <futhin> it's tight or something..
22:25:43 <futhin> hm
22:25:45 <I440r> if he comes in here - ask him about it
22:25:53 <futhin> ah, another question :)
22:26:12 <onetom> I440r: cat isforth/asmsrc/* | grep '^ ' | grep -v 'd[bwd]' | sort | uniq -c | sort | less
22:26:20 <I440r> ?
22:26:35 <I440r> wtf does that do 
22:26:36 <onetom> I440r: analyze this a lil bit and then start thinkin an asm
22:26:54 <I440r> how can i analyze something i cant read :P
22:27:02 <onetom> crunches ur code :P
22:27:16 <onetom> tears it apart :)
22:27:38 <I440r> right now i could care less
22:27:46 <I440r> without a working assembler isforth is dead in the water
22:27:56 <onetom> its a statistics about ur asm code
22:28:24 * MrReach returns.
22:28:59 <I440r> wb
22:29:22 <I440r> ./me still depressed - frustrated. totally pissed off with self for being unable to write assembler :(
22:29:24 <onetom> I440r: u dont use more than ~450 asm instructions
22:29:46 <onetom> I440r: its not so terrible 2 write an assembler for it
22:29:52 <I440r> lol you cant POSSIBLY say that
22:29:59 <I440r> mov eax,5 is NOT the same instruction as
22:30:14 <MrReach> futhin, look for MARKER instead of forget in gforth
22:30:15 <I440r> mov eax, 5+[ebx+4*ebp]
22:30:35 <onetom> who stated it is?
22:30:42 <I440r> is marker like anew ?
22:31:04 <onetom> have u took a look @ the list i showed u above?
22:31:31 <futhin> onetom: where's the isforth directory on your comp ?  i want to see the list..
22:31:59 <I440r> no 
22:32:40 <I440r> and you are missing the point
22:32:51 <I440r> i would like an assembler that accounted for any instruciton i might be expected to use
22:32:51 <I440r> not just the ones i did
22:33:14 <MrReach> erm ... yes
22:33:36 <MrReach> erm ... yes MARKER is like ANEW
22:33:54 <MrReach> I440r: why wouldn't that work? (: aam aam-opcode c, ;)
22:34:06 <I440r> it would and it wouldnt
22:34:18 <MrReach> does it take any params?
22:34:19 <I440r> how would you account for the fact that the aam has a PARAMETER
22:34:23 <MrReach> oh!
22:34:27 <I440r> not passing the parameter is not wrong
22:34:38 <I440r> aam 
22:34:40 <I440r> aam 10
22:34:46 <onetom> I440r: i know what r u talkin about, but i also know what am I talkin about
22:34:57 <MrReach> yes, intel docs it as a two-byte opcode, but it's really an opcode followed by (usually fixed) 1-bytes parameter
22:35:08 <onetom> I440r: so dont debate, try 2 start doing a dumb assembler
22:35:08 --- quit: herkamire (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
22:35:14 <I440r> onetim i know you do dood im just in a bad mood - ignore me :)
22:35:23 <I440r> i started to
22:35:28 <onetom> I440r: only 4 those instructions what u use, 1st
22:35:30 <I440r> and stopped 3 minutes later
22:35:47 <MrReach> what stumbling block did you hit?
22:35:49 <onetom> :)
22:35:53 <I440r> knowing how to encode the instructions is only PART of the problem
22:36:08 <I440r> probably my attitude stopped me
22:36:12 <MrReach> yes, you need to carefully think through the syntax first
22:36:17 <MrReach> esp w/ x86
22:36:17 <I440r> i actually dont want to write the fucking thing
22:36:28 <I440r> i have things i KNOW i can write that are SIMPLE for me to write
22:36:36 <onetom> so u existing 1s :P
22:36:45 <I440r> the assembler would take me a VERY fucking long time to write
22:37:06 <I440r> onetom sure. you port one to isforth
22:37:20 <I440r> without defining ANY of the ans words i object to
22:37:21 <onetom> definitely this is the point when u should use already written 1s
22:37:28 <MrReach> heh, I'd write it on win32forth, THEN port to isforth
22:37:32 <onetom> k
22:37:36 <onetom> why not...
22:37:36 <I440r> you cant
22:37:44 <MrReach> and it would have stuff like CELLS scattered all over the place
22:37:46 <I440r> win32rforth does NOT do absolute addresses
22:38:00 <MrReach> doesn't matter, in assembly
22:38:04 <onetom> but help me w an is4th <-> ans differences doc 1st
22:38:15 <MrReach> one is not required to use or not use any particular addressing
22:38:21 <I440r> it sure as fuck does - isforth doesnt use relative addresses for variables
22:38:23 <I440r> etc
22:38:28 <I440r> it uses ABSOLUTE addresses
22:38:29 <MrReach> c, is c,
22:38:37 <MrReach> c, is the heart of the assembler
22:38:49 <I440r> mov eax, ' myvar >body
22:39:03 <I440r> is an ABSOLUTE address
22:39:11 <MrReach> heh, it's up to the coder to get the correct address, no?
22:39:21 <MrReach> in win32forth, you have to use rel>abs
22:39:23 <I440r> that assembler does not assemble the absolute address versions
22:39:40 <I440r> ugh
22:39:46 <I440r> also i have issues with his lisence
22:39:50 <I440r> ive looked at his code too
22:39:57 <I440r> yes its very nice but
22:40:09 <I440r> it has way too much bullshit ans words in it
22:40:26 <I440r> i think its my objection to ans words thats going to be the biggest block tomy betting any assembler
22:40:41 <MrReach> however, coding a variable fetch in win32forth given a relative adr, one would use the [EBX+ESI] addressing mode, and everything owrks out automatically
22:40:49 <I440r> theres ALOT of complex stuff in that assembler that i REFUSE to cater to
22:41:07 <MrReach> I retain the rights to the things I write
22:41:21 <I440r> mrreach sure 
22:41:23 <MrReach> I don't intend to distribute it with any particular forth
22:41:26 <onetom> I440r: icould help u in unansifying, think...
22:41:31 <I440r> i cant object to that
22:41:39 <onetom> I440r: but we need a difference list 1st...
22:41:43 <I440r> but i wont use an assembler that would taint MY lisence
22:41:43 <MrReach> but anyone wanting to use it may do so
22:41:47 <onetom> I440r: between is4th & ans
22:41:55 <MrReach> of course
22:42:11 <onetom> I440r: gforth also has an assembler, whats wrong w that?
22:42:12 <I440r> i think win32forths assembler would taint my lisence
22:42:18 <MrReach> win32forth has a lot of stuff, ANS or not
22:42:21 <I440r> gforth is ALSO gpl 
22:42:22 <MrReach> *WAY* lot
22:42:40 <I440r> win32forht is public domain
22:43:04 <I440r> if i distribute an executable that contains the win32forth assembler
22:43:07 <I440r> then that executable is GPL
22:43:09 <onetom> I440r: license problems r just excuses not 2 do the job :P
22:43:12 <I440r> not modifed gpl but
22:43:14 <I440r> G P L
22:43:30 <MrReach> on windows, it's about the best forth development platform, next to swiftforth (which has an excellent editor)
22:43:36 <I440r> onetom im not going to steal his assembler
22:43:42 <futhin> L G P L 
22:43:44 <onetom> I440r: forget that stupid w4th. what about gforth?
22:43:54 <futhin> gforth is GPL
22:43:54 <onetom> I440r: u DONT HAVE TO
22:43:58 <MrReach> what about gforth?
22:43:59 <futhin> his isforth is LGPL
22:44:08 <futhin> LGPL does not mix with GPL
22:44:12 <I440r> futhin isforth is modified lgpl
22:44:18 <futhin> it would taint his license
22:44:18 <onetom> I440r: u should just modify it 4 selfeducational purposes!
22:44:34 <MrReach> heh, just because I develop on a GPL system does not mean my sources are bound by GPL
22:44:35 <onetom> I440r: dont b silly maaan
22:44:47 <I440r> onetom ive never seen the gforth assembler
22:44:54 <I440r> i have no idea what lisence is on it
22:44:56 <MrReach> it's "ok"
22:45:03 <I440r> i have no idea if i can use it and retain my lisence
22:45:26 <I440r> cant it be ported to isforth easilly without requiring i add words i deliberatly left out of the isforth kernel
22:45:40 <I440r> does it support only 5 # ax mov format?
22:45:42 <MrReach> HA! Who cares?!?!
22:45:48 <I440r> or will it suppoirt mov eax, 5
22:45:53 <I440r> or , # 5 
22:46:04 <MrReach> I _think_ it is polish only, not sure though
22:46:31 <I440r> dont want it. not unless it can be EASILLY modified for sanity
22:46:44 <MrReach> then you prob don't want anything I'd write
22:46:48 <I440r> i am prejudiced against ass backwards assembly in forth
22:47:13 <I440r> mrreach you said you would write it backwards. i asked if you would then make it support both methods
22:47:16 <I440r> you said yes
22:47:16 <MrReach> as you said, when you think forth, think forth, don't try to make it look like BASIC (or intel assembler)    @:^>
22:47:27 <I440r> thats right
22:47:34 <I440r> but when i code assembler i THINK assemblker
22:47:45 <I440r> and 5 # ax mov is WRONG
22:47:58 <MrReach> I said it was possible to write a prefix assembler, and then detailed the way I'd seen some others do it
22:47:59 <I440r> ill suffer it on a temporary basis
22:48:02 <I440r> but not permanantly
22:48:03 <onetom> \ modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
22:48:03 <onetom> \ as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
22:48:03 <onetom> \ of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
22:48:19 <onetom> LGPL isnt a "later version"?
22:48:22 <I440r> onetom theres the crux
22:48:31 <I440r> its not LGPL - its GPL
22:48:35 <I440r> lgpl is lesser gpl
22:49:00 <MrReach> heh, yoiu could pirate it and let Anton Ertl sue you
22:49:09 <I440r> and the only difference between lgpl and gpl is that it allows you to not pass the lisence on if your library is DYNAMICALLY linked
22:49:13 <onetom> I440r: but understand it dood, u dont have 2 stick it w ur isforth, u have 2 use it temporarily
22:49:14 <I440r> if its static - your fucked
22:49:31 <I440r> onetom any code it produces is gpl
22:49:45 <I440r> because any code it produces will be an extension to itself
22:49:51 <I440r> i.e. staticaly linked to it
22:50:03 <I440r> i.e. the lisence will taint mine
22:50:36 <MrReach> well, I never thought I'd see an inflexible forth coder
22:50:43 <MrReach> there's a first for everything, I guess
22:51:12 <I440r> im not inflexible
22:51:12 <I440r> but i wont compromize my beliefs
22:51:16 <I440r> or my standards
22:51:20 <MrReach> heh
22:51:26 <MrReach> standards?     @:^>
22:51:36 <I440r> and its a PRIME directive of isforth to NOT force ITS lisence on ANYONE
22:51:46 <MrReach> brb, my win98 machine hasn't rebooted in 3 days, and it's getting a head cold
22:51:49 <futhin> never compromise your inner ANSI standard! ;)
22:51:55 --- join: davidw (~davidw@ppp-134-19.25-151.libero.it) joined #forth
22:52:00 <I440r> you think i dont have any standards
22:52:02 <I440r> ?
22:52:07 <MrReach> of course you do!
22:52:17 <I440r> i have very high standards
22:52:32 <MrReach> it was supposed to be a poke in the ribs, not a direct insult
22:52:36 <onetom> sure u have, but u cant think freely enough
22:52:43 <onetom> logically enough
22:53:02 <MrReach> anyway, brb
22:53:08 <onetom> ithink u have dogmas...
22:53:13 <onetom> not standards
22:53:19 --- quit: MrReach ()
22:53:19 <I440r> whatever
22:53:19 <onetom> but gotta go
22:53:23 <futhin> i don't think i440r is inflexible, the issue is the license.  if he uses an GPL assembler
22:53:36 <futhin> it fucks the LPG license..
22:53:49 <onetom> dogmas r unbrokable stupid restrictions
22:53:56 <onetom> what helps sometimes
22:54:22 <onetom> but only ties ur hands usually
22:55:03 <futhin> what dogma?
22:55:10 <futhin> i thought we were talking about the license?
22:58:39 <I440r> where can i see the gforth assembler without installing gforth
22:58:49 --- join: MrReach (~mrreach@209.181.43.190) joined #forth
22:59:51 <MrReach> I'm back ... miss me terribly?
23:00:03 <I440r> ya
23:00:19 <I440r> we had 50 naked babes come in here and we had a quick orgy while you were away
23:00:47 <MrReach> oh, that would have been fun ... next time
23:01:01 <I440r> lol
23:01:14 <I440r> we were gona make a movie of it but they left :P
23:01:18 <I440r> neway
23:01:29 <I440r> where can i see the gforth assembler without needint to install gforth
23:01:40 <MrReach> heh, in the sources
23:01:54 <MrReach> I'm not sure if it's at sourceforge or not
23:02:04 <I440r> fuckit then
23:02:04 <I440r> i bet its written in c anyway :P
23:02:11 <MrReach> haha!
23:03:06 <I440r> sourceforge is about as nice to navigate and poke arround as the mirablis web site
23:03:33 * MrReach offers some cheese to go with his whine.
23:03:40 <MrReach> your mood is remarkable
23:04:05 <futhin> wtf
23:04:11 <MrReach> who has a recommendation for registering a domain???
23:04:33 <MrReach> ICQ has a terrible website, IMO
23:04:39 <MrReach> I think I440r agrees
23:05:17 <I440r> icq's website is a perfect example of how NOT to do a web page
23:05:22 <I440r> too much graphics
23:05:29 <futhin> it's not even too much graphics
23:05:32 <I440r> micro miniature fonts
23:05:33 <MrReach> vague navigation
23:05:33 <futhin> it's too much damn noise
23:05:57 <I440r> links that lead to links that lead to links that lead to links that lead you back to where you came from
23:05:57 <I440r> blind links upon blind links
23:06:07 <futhin> lol
23:06:15 <futhin> i never surfed mirabilis except to get icq
23:06:19 <MrReach> the icq program itself suffers from terrible featuritis
23:06:22 <futhin> and there was no trouble to do that
23:06:48 <I440r> not only that but. it crashes alot too
23:06:49 <I440r> lol
23:06:54 <I440r> :(
23:07:01 <MrReach> it would be cool if ICQ revamped and went completely with a pluggable module system
23:07:17 <futhin> it's too late
23:07:20 <futhin> it's dead :P
23:07:25 <futhin> i use trillian now
23:07:27 <futhin> works fine for me
23:07:38 <MrReach> oh? is it? it's showing that you're online, futhin
23:07:38 <I440r> a web site for what
23:07:51 <MrReach> ah!
23:07:59 <futhin> trillian supports icq, aim, yim, msn, etc
23:08:02 <futhin> and irc
23:08:43 <futhin> of course, the latest version seems to be screwy ..
23:08:51 <futhin> doesn't let you message people who have an older version
23:09:01 <I440r> lol
23:09:03 <futhin> of trillian, or messaging people with icq clones or something
23:09:04 <MrReach> except it always shows you as Away on ICQ
23:09:09 <futhin> yeah i know
23:09:09 <I440r> i told you about trillian :P
23:09:11 <futhin> buggy
23:09:18 <futhin> it set me away one day
23:09:23 <futhin> and it stays away
23:09:26 <futhin> :P
23:09:28 <MrReach> haha!!!
23:09:34 <I440r> i never liked icq anyway
23:10:00 <I440r> who has gforth
23:10:03 <I440r> dcc me the assembler
23:10:03 <MrReach> anyone got a favorite company for domain registration???
23:10:05 <futhin> me
23:10:08 <I440r> if its written in forth
23:10:23 <I440r> dont dcc me no bullshit c code
23:10:48 <MrReach> I think he wrote the assembler is pure forth
23:11:05 <MrReach> and the C code is the worst example of C code I've ever seen
23:11:17 <MrReach> it's like the whole forth is one big macro
23:11:39 <I440r> as opposed to one big switch statement ?
23:11:41 <I440r> lol
23:11:46 <I440r> inside a for loop
23:11:57 <MrReach> but he was after the portability and optimisations of the GNU compiler, and they work well for him
23:12:01 <I440r> that calls itself recursivly
23:12:39 <MrReach> gforth really is *FAST* for a threaded forth
23:12:50 <I440r> is it as fast as iforth ?
23:13:04 <I440r> iforth took 2 seconds to do something that took isforth 20 minutes to complete
23:13:18 <MrReach> iforth is hella optimised subroutine threaded forth, no it's not as fast
23:13:18 <I440r> erm 20 seconds
23:13:48 <I440r> marcel h sure knows how to code. ill give him that :)
23:13:52 <MrReach> in fact, iforth often produces faster code than gcc, and often faster than hand-assembly
23:14:09 <I440r> gcc doesnt have a very good optimizer
23:14:13 <futhin> lies, nothing is faster than hand-assembly :P
23:14:21 <MrReach> no, it's got a "decent" optimiser
23:14:36 <MrReach> if you say so, but speuler would disagree
23:14:39 <I440r> its got a semi decent optimizer :P
23:14:59 <I440r> futhin dcc me that damned assembler
23:15:01 <I440r> grrr
23:15:18 <MrReach> it's expecting to optimise c generated code, and it kinda stumbles on forthish ways of doing things
23:16:20 <MrReach> optimisers often do better than hand coding ... they never forget a shortcut or an odd addressing mode
23:16:43 <MrReach> but their output is often hard to decipher, too
23:17:01 <I440r> msvc++'s optimiser is very very clever
23:17:22 <I440r> ive seen it optimise a very complex 3 or 4 page DO NOTHING function right out of the program
23:17:36 <MrReach> heh
23:17:51 <I440r> i was very impressed
23:17:53 <MrReach> you ought to hand it some real functions and look at the output
23:18:27 <MrReach> perhaps the DIGIT function from forth
23:18:27 <I440r> when i worked for bally gaming my boss spent like 4 weeks writing an assembler function and hand optimising it
23:18:34 <I440r> put ALOT of effort into it
23:18:51 <MrReach> heh, the compiler version was faster?
23:19:00 <I440r> the vc++ expert there wrote the equiv code in c++ and had vc output the asm
23:19:11 <I440r> took the vc++ guy like 3 minutes to do
23:19:37 <I440r> the code produced by the compiler was almost identical to the code that my bos had written :)
23:19:43 <I440r> he was pissed hehe
23:19:57 <MrReach> which bencharmarked faster, and by how much?
23:20:15 <I440r> they didnt benchmark them - the code was so similar it wouldn have been moot
23:20:27 <MrReach> many times, the optimiser will speed up code by inserting NOPs so that branches are page aligned
23:20:45 <I440r> the point was 3 weeks of intense coding and tweeking against 3 minuts of throw it thru the compiler
23:20:45 <I440r> heh
23:21:08 <MrReach> yeah, I've hinted at a similar forth compiler ... freeware
23:21:10 <I440r> how they perform is not an objection i have to optimizers
23:21:19 <I440r> its what they take away from you when they do it
23:21:26 <I440r> neway
23:21:27 <MrReach> no, they make the code irreverible
23:21:29 <I440r> futhin
23:21:35 <I440r> not realy
23:21:47 <futhin> yeah? i've downloaded gforth and i'm going to zip up the code part..
23:21:50 <I440r> i bet i can reverse engineer optimised forth easier than optimised c
23:21:55 <I440r> lol
23:22:00 <I440r> i thuynked you had it
23:22:01 <I440r> duh
23:22:07 <futhin> i do, on sourceforge :P
23:22:10 <MrReach> well, YEAH! you think in forth
23:22:11 <I440r> lol
23:22:33 <I440r> i can reverse engineer turnkeyd non optimised forth in no time flat heh
23:23:28 <MrReach> both swiftforth and vfx have pretty darn good machine code optimisers
23:23:55 <MrReach> sure makes the sources look SWEET
23:24:22 <MrReach> because people stop worrying about how fast it runs, and write to solve the problem at hand
23:24:42 <I440r> errr is that dcc working dood ?
23:24:49 <I440r> failed. grr
23:24:53 <I440r> connection refused heh
23:25:00 <futhin> lol
23:25:01 <futhin> heh
23:25:02 <I440r> email it
23:25:07 <futhin> i'll connect to ur ftp
23:25:10 <MrReach> oh! email!
23:25:17 <I440r> someone dcc'd me thru the ipmasq yesterday
23:25:22 <I440r> try incoming
23:25:24 <MrReach> anyone got any suggestions for a domain registration company?
23:25:27 <futhin> no way am i going to email it to your lameass mailcity account!!
23:25:39 <futhin> the dcc send isn't working because of my router
23:25:46 <I440r> oh i can very seriously suggest NOT using network solutions
23:25:53 <I440r> oh
23:25:57 <MrReach> not internic??? why?
23:26:04 <MrReach> heh, I just went to their site
23:26:19 <futhin> mrreach: i know two people that would know the answer, but they are afk right now
23:26:23 <I440r> because if you ever have to modify your going to be in for a very very very long wait 
23:26:29 <I440r> you go to their page
23:26:36 <I440r> you download their form from their web site
23:26:40 <I440r> you fill it in and send it
23:26:44 <MrReach> oh, not cool
23:26:59 <I440r> you get an auto response telling you - that form is no longer being used. use the attached form instead
23:27:05 <MrReach> I want to enter a password and change my ips over a secure connection
23:27:06 <I440r> you fill it in and send it in
23:27:11 <futhin> mrreach: what kind of domain do you want? there are free domains (without advertising!), there are alsorts of cheap domain registration companies..
23:27:32 <MrReach> I want to aim a name at one of my IPs ... that's all
23:27:32 <I440r> you get an auto reply telling you that they could not carry out your request because your ID could not be verified
23:27:45 <futhin> mrreach:   go to www.tk i think
23:27:47 <MrReach> no mail, no web, no redirection, no name server
23:27:52 <I440r> no matter what you do you NEVER reach a real human being
23:28:16 <I440r> your emails are always intercepted by their seriously fucked in the head scripts
23:28:23 <I440r> and they ALWAYS fuck uop
23:28:24 <I440r> up
23:28:34 <MrReach> heh
23:28:35 <I440r> it took me three monts to get my domain moved last time
23:28:39 <I440r> THREE MONTHS
23:28:55 <futhin> mrreach:  http://www.tk/
23:28:56 <I440r> dont user internic
23:29:00 <futhin> free tk, no advertising
23:29:12 <futhin> free url, no advertising
23:29:17 <futhin> get www.mrreach.tk  or whatever
23:29:22 <MrReach> what are yoiu talking about?
23:29:35 <MrReach> no, you don't understand ...
23:29:38 <futhin> you want a domain name?
23:29:41 <MrReach> I want a DOMAIN
23:29:56 <MrReach> I'm sick to death of lame free email services
23:30:18 <futhin> www.<name>.com  <--  is that a domain ?!
23:30:26 <I440r> mrreach i actually found a free web based email i LIKE!!!!
23:30:30 <MrReach> I want an SMTP server running on my unix machine receiving outside connections
23:30:34 <MrReach> yes, that's right
23:30:40 <I440r> fastermail.com
23:30:46 <futhin> http://www.tk/  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
23:30:52 <futhin> you can get
23:30:54 <futhin> a domain
23:30:57 <futhin> that ends with
23:30:57 <futhin> .tk
23:31:00 <futhin> and it is free
23:31:04 <futhin> so what'st he problem
23:31:13 <futhin> www.mrreach.tk  or whatever the heck you need
23:31:16 <I440r> futh did u email that ?
23:31:42 <futhin> i440r: no uploaded it
23:31:53 <futhin> mrreach: or maybe i'm wrong about .tk
23:32:05 <futhin> somebody had a site 
23:32:07 <I440r> to incoming ?
23:32:22 <futhin> with <name>.org <name>.net and <name>.tk
23:32:27 <futhin> he registered a lot :)
23:32:28 <MrReach> I'm thinking PugetProperties.com, MrReach.name and MarkGraham.name
23:32:35 <futhin> i440r:  yes
23:32:52 <futhin> what the hell
23:32:57 <futhin> i don't see it in incoming?
23:33:16 <MrReach> incoming usually doesn't allow browsing filenames
23:33:18 <I440r> lol
23:33:21 <I440r> i just moved it out
23:33:24 <futhin> k
23:33:35 <I440r> do you see anything in there ?
23:33:41 <I440r> mrreach tats assuming i set it up rite heh
23:33:43 <I440r> lol
23:33:45 <futhin> yes, i see other files
23:33:48 <MrReach> true
23:33:50 <futhin> closed the ftp client now
23:33:51 <I440r> big assumption :)
23:34:10 <MrReach> especially with you
23:34:18 <I440r> not because i dont know how
23:34:18 <MrReach> actually, it assumes a default setup
23:34:23 <I440r> but because im way too lazy heh
23:34:31 <I440r> specially now that im not on a per connection
23:34:32 <MrReach> ok
23:35:28 <MrReach> mrreach.org and mrreach.net are available
23:35:41 <MrReach> until one of you bastards registers it in the next 3 mins
23:35:50 <futhin> heh
23:35:53 <I440r> lol
23:35:58 <I440r> now would we do that
23:35:58 <MrReach> we had that happen with our ISP name
23:35:59 <I440r> hrm
23:36:00 <I440r> i know
23:36:03 <futhin> not happening
23:36:07 <I440r> i COULD reg it ahd hold it to ransom
23:36:18 <MrReach> yep, called piracy
23:36:19 <I440r> for one nice isforth assembler :)
23:36:45 <futhin> mrreach.com for oral health!
23:37:01 <MrReach> yeah yeah yeah ... don't remind me
23:37:04 <futhin> lol
23:37:19 <MrReach> Johnson&Johnson use that site a LOT, too
23:37:25 <MrReach> so they aren't about to give it up
23:38:08 * MrReach brushes his teeth sexily and spits the horseshit that was between his teeth at Johnson&Johnson
23:38:21 <futhin> heh
23:38:29 <MrReach> sorry, I get graphic when I drink
23:38:34 <I440r> i do NOT understand the word postpone
23:38:36 <futhin> that doesn't sound sexy at all
23:38:39 <I440r> not one bit
23:38:45 <I440r> i know what its doing
23:38:48 <futhin> i440r: postpone is anti-immediate
23:38:49 <I440r> just not HOW
23:38:56 <I440r> no its not
23:39:02 <futhin> defer?
23:39:05 <I440r> its a replacement for compile and [compile]
23:39:08 <futhin> it's not defer?
23:39:10 <MrReach> oh, well, I'm sure it depends on the system
23:39:25 <futhin> i don't know anything at all about defer & postpone
23:39:29 <I440r> mrreach compile and [compile] are VERY different words
23:39:30 <futhin> i look at gforth code
23:39:36 <futhin> and i see a lot of defer
23:39:39 <I440r> one compiles an immediate word into the CURRENT definition
23:39:41 <futhin> it seems pretty ugly and gay :(
23:39:47 <MrReach> it would probably use ' (tick) to find the word, then COMPILE, to put it in the current def
23:39:49 <I440r> the other compiles ANY word into the target definition
23:39:55 <I440r> how can you have one word that takes its place
23:40:45 <I440r> ug i also hate the way people do
23:41:01 <MrReach> ok, it parse a word from the input stream ... uses FIND or SEARCH to locate it in the search order, and COMPILE, s it regardless of immediacy
23:41:07 <I440r> postpone x postpone y postpone z postpone a postpone b postpone c
23:41:09 <I440r> insterad of doing 
23:41:16 <I440r> : foo x y z a b c ;
23:41:28 <I440r> and postponing THJAT
23:41:41 <MrReach> heh
23:41:41 <I440r> fuck why not just add shitloads of visual clutter to the sources  grrr
23:41:57 <I440r> the word postpone encourages bad code
23:42:19 <I440r> every time i see ans code i cant read it
23:42:22 <I440r> i never could
23:42:26 <I440r> i cant read c code either
23:42:31 <I440r> after a while all i can see is
23:42:41 <I440r> blah blah blah blah blah
23:44:39 <I440r> actually im starting to dislike DOES> a little now too
23:44:45 <I440r> instead of doing 
23:44:57 <I440r> : foo create blah blah does> xxx yyy zzz ;
23:45:03 <I440r> do
23:45:11 <I440r> : (foo) xxx yyy zzz ;
23:45:23 <I440r> : foo create blah blah blah ;uses (foo) ;
23:45:25 <I440r> much better
23:46:20 <I440r> this way you can put the word FOO in a transient vocabulary (dumped on turnkey) and just have (foo) part
23:47:27 <I440r> thats not the whole assembler btw
23:47:28 <onetom> I440r: postpone is just a state-smart compile or [compile]
23:47:45 <onetom> so not word postpone encourages bad code
23:47:48 <I440r> none of the mneumonics are there
23:47:50 <onetom> not in itself
23:48:02 <onetom> certainly u r right about the
23:48:10 <futhin> defer seems evil to me, but i'm not familiar with it
23:48:16 <onetom> immediate/non-immediate problem
23:48:19 <I440r> onetom compile and [compile] are better imho
23:48:35 <I440r> its NOT a problem lol
23:48:36 <I440r> heh
23:48:37 <I440r> neway
23:48:39 <onetom> but dont make errorneous conclusions
23:49:08 <I440r> futin think of a defered word as a constant pointer to a different word
23:49:13 <futhin> but when i do "SEE <SOMEWORD>"  and all it shows is " : BLAH BLAH BLAH ;  DEFER BLAHBLAH "   it's not very easy to learn from.. unless i do SEE on the BLAHBLAH..  but why should i be forced to do that? :(
23:49:28 <I440r> you just change the bodie field of the constant and it points to some OTHEr word
23:50:05 <MrReach> : DEFER CREATE ['] not-defered-error , DOES> @ EXECUTE ;
23:50:55 <I440r> : defer create , ;uses dodefer ;
23:51:01 <I440r> is a better definition :P
23:51:14 <MrReach> your defer expexts xt on the stack?
23:51:14 <futhin> defer seems dumb tho?
23:51:28 <I440r> no
23:51:36 <MrReach> it is sometimes neccessary to change the bahavior of a word at runtime
23:51:39 <I440r> the def is incomplete
23:51:41 <onetom> I440r: yah, thats much more chatty...
23:51:45 <I440r> defered words default to crash
23:52:03 <MrReach> my defereds default to error
23:52:11 <I440r> : defer create compile crash ;uses dodefer ;
23:52:14 <I440r> not ,
23:52:17 <MrReach> haha!
23:52:22 <I440r> yes crash is
23:52:39 <onetom> tho, ;uses could by word-type-is: or sg like that
23:52:43 <I440r> : crash abort" uninitialized exection vector" ;
23:52:55 <I440r> sg ?
23:53:01 <MrReach> : crash TRUE abort" uninitialized exection vector" ;
23:53:05 <futhin> something
23:53:08 <onetom> sg = SomethinG
23:53:10 <I440r> ;useserm ya
23:53:14 <MrReach> abort" needs a flag, doesn't it?
23:53:18 <I440r> yea i always forget the flag heh
23:53:51 <I440r> all isforth words start with a 
23:53:54 <onetom> I440r: iwill scan ya a page of english-hungarian dict ;)
23:53:56 <I440r> call some-word
23:54:00 <I440r>  body starts here
23:54:14 <I440r> ;uses patches that call
23:54:27 <I440r> create blah
23:54:29 <onetom> iknow
23:54:29 <I440r> creats a 
23:54:43 <I440r> i know you do onetom - im educating futhin :P
23:54:44 <onetom> but why do u call it ;?
23:54:48 <I440r> foo:
23:54:52 <I440r>  call dovariable
23:54:54 <onetom> oops, sorry :)))
23:55:02 <I440r>  this is the body of the assumed variable
23:55:15 <I440r> : variable create 0 , ;
23:55:25 <I440r> the 0 gets stored in the body of the newly created variable
23:55:36 <I440r> : constant create , ;uses doconstant ;
23:55:41 <I440r> now you an do
23:55:45 <I440r> 0 constant zero
23:55:55 <I440r> constant creats a word called zero
23:56:13 <I440r> it commas the 0 you pased it into the body of the newly created variable (hehe)
23:56:28 <I440r> then the ;user patches the call to dovariable to be a call to doconstant
23:56:39 <I440r> ;code is very similar
23:56:41 <I440r> except
23:56:50 <I440r> immediatly following a ;code is machine code
23:56:52 <I440r> dd blah
23:56:54 <I440r>  dd blah
23:56:56 <I440r>  dd blah
23:56:57 <I440r>  dd ;code
23:57:05 <I440r>  machine
23:57:06 <I440r>  code
23:57:08 <I440r>  instructions
23:57:10 <I440r>  here
23:57:18 <MrReach> btw, the word that parses the input stream and places the bcharacters in name space is often called HEADER or BUILD-HEADER
23:57:29 <I440r> yes
23:57:36 <I440r> its called head" in isforth
23:57:45 <MrReach> heh, figures    @:^>
23:57:55 <I440r> stole it from fpc heh
23:58:03 <MrReach> you can bet that if I ever use your isforth ...
23:58:20 <I440r> the word header exists
23:58:22 <MrReach> I'll dump WORDS into a datafile so I can regex it
23:58:25 <I440r> header calls head"
23:58:46 <I440r> head" just creates the header in head space
23:59:01 <I440r> header ALSO compiles the default call dovariable in list space
23:59:17 <I440r> why dont you do that now. the kernel is fairly stable now
23:59:48 <I440r> head" is a good name btw - tho build-header isnt bad
23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/02.04.20